Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

War Memorials

Andrew Slaughter: In how many cases his Department has been involved with regimental associations or other interested parties in the future of war memorials located in buildings due for redevelopment in the last five years.

Don Touhig: Where Ministry of Defence buildings are to be developed, we work closely with regimental associations and other interested parties to ensure that any memorials that they contain are handled in a sensitive and appropriate way. However, that is done on a case-by-case basis and we do not hold central records.

Andrew Slaughter: I am most grateful for the Minister's reply, but my experience in the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing, about which I am concerned, is that three significant memorials have been relocated or threatened with relocation in the past three years. Although I am pleased that those issues have been successfully resolved thanks to the intervention of the local authorities and others, that is not always the case. Does my hon. Friend therefore think that his Department should play a greater role in intervening if it is made aware that memorials are not being treated with the respect that they deserve?

Don Touhig: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's point. The Department is very sensitive in its handling of the issues concerning war memorials and the way in which they are maintained. Clearly when there are issues such as those that my hon. Friend referred to there will be discussions with the local authorities. We have no ownership of the memorials, but we will do everything possible to ensure that any change or movement is handled sensitively and properly out of respect for those whom such memorials recognise.

Philip Hollobone: How much funding does the Ministry of Defence provide for the preservation of war memorials in this country and abroad?

Don Touhig: It has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that costs associated with the maintenance of war memorials are not usually met by public funds, but by private donations or public subscriptions, which are often raised by the activities of organisations such as regimental associations. However, the Government through the MOD contribute £30 million a year to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that there is a case for some statutory obligation at least to notify if and when a war memorial is to be removed or, more importantly, destroyed? After all, other historic artefacts often have statutory protection. I hope that he will look for an early legislative opportunity to enable at least some period of public notification that such removal or extinction were contemplated.

Don Touhig: I do not know of any particular case, but if my hon. Friend has any cases that he can bring to my attention, I will certainly consider them. I will also look at the issue in general to see whether there is anything appropriate that we as a Government should do.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Lee Scott: If he will make a statement on the future aircraft carrier programme.

Adam Ingram: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 14 December, we have taken major steps forward in our plans for the future aircraft carriers. We have completed the detailed assessment work and have committed to the £300 million demonstration phase. An innovative shipbuilding strategy has been agreed that is central to our defence industrial strategy, with separate super blocks built at four yards and final assembly at Rosyth. That will create and sustain some 10,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. We are on course to provide the UK armed forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK, and an expeditionary capability unparalleled outside the United States.

Lee Scott: Press reports have indicated that the French are refusing to pay the £100 million bill to the British Government for aircraft carrier design. When the Minister sees his French counterpart, will he stay firm and say that they should pay that money? In addition, will technology be passed from the UK Government to the French Government?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the importance of consulting and discussing matters with one of our key allies in this area. If there is mutual benefit to the build of their aircraft carrier, we will clearly want to take that forward. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the outcome of those discussions, which will be amicable but like all commercial negotiations will have to be tough.

Kevan Jones: Although fabrication work on the blocks is very important to UK yards, including those in the north-east, the value of work in electronics and other high-tech bits for the future aircraft carriers are important. What steps is the Minister taking with the consortium to ensure that small and medium businesses in regions such as the north-east have access to that vital work?

Adam Ingram: The supply chain and the relationship between small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which are very innovative and leading edge, are key to the success of the British shipbuilding industry. The way in which our defence and maritime industrial strategies move forward will be to ensure that there is greater appreciation and awareness of what is out there, so that we get not only best value for money but the high quality that the British industry can deliver.

Robert Key: Have the French Government finally decided whether they wish to build a third aircraft carrier; and, if so, have they communicated that decision to Her Majesty's Government?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman would have to ask the French Government about their final decision in that respect. Clearly, they are considering the need; that is why they are discussing the matter with us. I have no doubt that as they move toward their strategic decisions on their requirements, they will take into account what we finally agree.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of getting the size of the carriers right. Has he taken into account the problem that there might be no stowable version of the joint strike fighter? What does he envisage will operate from the platform, and what guarantees has he had regarding technology transfer?

Adam Ingram: We are confident that the solution will be found and we are approaching the matter accordingly. My hon. Friend knows that we are engaged in constant discussion and consultation with the United States Administration to ensure delivery on technology transfer.

Gerald Howarth: Since last month's highly critical Defence Committee report on the carriers, problems with the joint strike fighter, which is to be deployed on the carriers and to which the UK taxpayer has contributed $2 billion, have intensified. The Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for defence procurement, Lord Drayson, has referred to the difficulty in negotiations with the United States, and just today we hear that the Prime Minister's pleas have apparently fallen on deaf ears in the United States. It would help the House if the Minister of State spelled out in more detail how progress is being made. Lord Drayson said that there was a plan B in the event that the JSF did not proceed: can the Minister of State tell us what plan B is? Would it include marinising Typhoon, or an off-the-shelf buy of another American aircraft?

Adam Ingram: The important thing is to succeed in plan A. The MOD would be failing if it did not look at a range of eventualities, but it would not be appropriate to play all of that out when our objective is to get the best for our new aircraft carrier. The Opposition are helping us to exert pressure and to make sure that the United States understands the importance of the project, which is vital not only to the United Kingdom, but to the NATO alliance.

Veteran's Badge

Jamie Reed: How many veteran's badges have been issued since the badge was introduced.

Don Touhig: Her Majesty's armed forces veteran's badge scheme was launched in May 2004 and, to date, some 182,000 ex-service personnel have applied for and received the badge.

Jamie Reed: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the badge's importance as a symbol of the gratitude of the state for the sacrifice of the individual in the service of the nation. However, there is uncertainty among veterans in my constituency and their families about eligibility. Will he confirm precisely who is eligible for the badge?

Don Touhig: The veteran's badge is available to all those who served in the British armed forces in the first and second world wars, between the wars and up until 1954. That includes the Home Guard, those who served in Polish forces under UK command and the widows and widowers who are in receipt of a war pension. Merchant navy seamen who took part in military operations are also included and they will shortly be able to apply for their own version of the badge.

Henry Bellingham: Veterans want to be able to wear the badge, but they also want to wear campaign medals to which they are entitled. What is the update position on the medal for the Malayan emergency that has been awarded by the Malaysian Government?

Don Touhig: The Department's efforts to mark the end of various campaigns have been quite successful and we have made great efforts to get medals out. The interest last year in the 60th commemoration of the end of the last war increased the demand and application for historic medals. That has resulted in 9,370 world war two cases still awaiting assessment. I have proposals for improving the service and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Russell Brown: Many of those who served in my local regiment, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, qualify for the veteran's badge. What plans or proposals does my hon. Friend have to further extend the qualifying date?

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend may be aware that on 11 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State extended eligibility for the badge to cover those who served between the wars and those who served up till 1954. We will continue to extend eligibility over the coming years. It is our aim eventually to include all who served in the armed forces. It is a question of how quickly we can process the applications. The more speedily that can happen, the sooner we can make an announcement about extending eligibility further.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister is aware—he mentioned it in a previous answer—of the role that Polish forces, one of whom was my own grandfather, played in the second world war. Will he please give me an assurance that the Polish forces will be recognised properly? There are still some Polish veterans living in this country who feel that they are neglected, sadly.

Don Touhig: I am sorry if there is a feeling of neglect. There is certainly no lack of respect and appreciation for the huge contribution made by Polish forces to our efforts in the last war. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was the first Minister to attend a service at the Polish memorial. We will continue to recognise the huge contribution. If there is anything we could or should do to improve that recognition, I shall be interested if the hon. Gentleman has any proposals to put before me.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In my constituency there is a group of veterans who, until recently, felt that they had been forgotten—those are veterans of the Arctic convoy. Two years ago I marched on Downing street with those brave men to plead their cause. I congratulate the Secretary of State on achieving what no other Government had achieved since the end of the second world war—getting recognition for those very brave men in the horrendous conditions in which they found themselves. Can my hon. Friend give me a progress report on the Arctic Star?

Don Touhig: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I take on board my hon. Friend's congratulations and thanks to him for the efforts that he has put in—a tremendous effort, indeed. We have had discussion, which he led, with the various organisations and we now have broad agreement on a design concept. That is going into the final design stage, and we hope to progress a contract letting shortly and issue the emblems after that. I was delighted to see early-day motion 1429 congratulating my right hon. Friend on his work on the matter—an amazing feat of political prowess, as it united in brotherhood my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in support. In terms of consensus, it is clear that my right hon. Friend reaches parts that the Leader of the Opposition wishes he could reach.

Nuclear Deterrence

Michael Fabricant: What his assessment is of the role of nuclear deterrence in the future security of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Gregory Barker: What his assessment is of the role of nuclear deterrence in the future security of the United Kingdom.

John Reid: As our last manifesto made clear, our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security while there continues to be any risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and while other countries retain substantial nuclear arsenals.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that unequivocal answer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever any future deterrent might be—theatre, strategic or tactical—as long as countries such as Iran and North Korea strive for nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom must maintain some form of nuclear deterrent for the defence of the realm?

John Reid: Our present deterrent is viable for about 15 to 20 years, so, as we made plain in our manifesto as recently as six months ago, we shall retain the nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. We shall do so on the assumption that, as long as anyone else who is a potential enemy has a nuclear weapon, we shall retain ours. That of course will have to be tested in analysis, with a forward look of between 20 and 50 years, if we are looking at a successor to our present system of nuclear deterrence; it is that very assumption that we will test against future threats and insecurities. If that assumption proves correct, the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman drew from it will prove to be correct.

Gregory Barker: Many of us will be pleased to hear that categorical assurance from the Secretary of State, but does he agree that the threat comes not only from the states that possess nuclear weapons, but from all those that may seek to possess them? Will he therefore be a little clearer as to what "the foreseeable future" means, and tell us when he expects to place firm plans before Parliament for the replacement of Trident?

John Reid: "The foreseeable future" means the lifetime of our present system, the end of which is approximately 15 to 20 years away. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues need not get too excited that anyone is going to take any sudden decisions, because we will retain our present nuclear deterrent during that period, as we made clear in our manifesto. The debate will be about whether we should extend the minimum nuclear deterrent in this country beyond that period, so we are talking about analysing the threats and risks between 20 and 50 years hence. Once we have done that, if the same assumptions apply, if there is a possibility that a potential enemy of this country could have access to nuclear weapons, and if we retain the same assumptions that we have now, we would obviously retain a minimum nuclear deterrent.

Gordon Prentice: The Prime Minister told us nine months ago that a decision would be taken in this Parliament on the replacement of Trident, and that he wanted to listen to the views of hon. Members. Is it my Friend's intention to publish a Green Paper setting out the options on this matter—we need not stick with just a submarine-based deterrent; there could be any number of other permutations—and will there be a vote in this Parliament on whether we retain our nuclear deterrent?

John Reid: Just to correct my hon. Friend, the Prime Minister said that it was likely that—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] As accuracy is demanded of me in these matters, I am entitled to demand accuracy from my hon. Friends. The Prime Minister said that it was likely and preferable that the decision be taken in this Parliament. Indeed, lest Conservative Members again get excited without due reason, may I say that it would be not only preferable but my intention to see that decision taken in this Parliament? Now that everyone has calmed down, may I also say that my hon. Friend is right on his second point? That is that, quite apart from the principle about whether we retain a minimum nuclear deterrent, if we did so, there would be a range of options open to us. On his third point about our being fully prepared, I fully accept that there would need to be a discussion on both the principle and the means, if we decide to do so, of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. There is plenty of time to discuss the exact method of doing that, and the exact voting patterns, which are a matter for the business managers, because there are no imminent decisions to be taken. Indeed, I have not even begun to consider the matter either in principle or in detail, nor have I received any papers on the principle or the detail from any officials. I am unlikely to do so for some time.

Keith Vaz: The Secretary of State for Defence will recall that on 3 and 4 December 1998 at St. Malo, the Prime Minister and President Chirac agreed to move towards a progressive framing of a common European defence policy. In the light of President Chirac's statement last week that he would be prepared to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against rogue states, what further discussions is the Secretary of State having with his European counterparts to discuss a common approach to these issues?

John Reid: If, by that, my hon. Friend means a common or joint approach to nuclear deterrence outside the framework of NATO, the answer at present is none.

Ian Taylor: In considering a replacement for our nuclear deterrent, will the Secretary of State take into account the reaction to President Chirac's speech last week, which was widely regarded as misguided or even counter-productive? Does not he accept that the biggest threat to this country is in more conventional areas and the overstretch of British forces? There must be a rebalancing of our thinking if we are really to protect the lives of our citizens, both in terms of overseas activities and in terms of homeland security.

John Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I know that he will understand that I no more speak for President Chirac than he does for Britain on such matters. If he has problems with the statements of Monsieur le Président, it would be better to write to him. On his second point, which juxtaposes conventional and nuclear forces, I do not believe that that is a useful way of examining matters. It is perfectly true that there are new threats arising from terrorism, but that does not mean that the old threats have disappeared. It is equally true that the type of forces that we would need to develop to counter terrorism, such as special forces, extra surveillance and extra mobility, are not necessarily nuclear weapons. That nuclear weapons are not a response to the threat of terrorism does not mean, however, that we should, for instance, get rid of special forces because they are not a response to the threat of nuclear weapons. The truth is that we need a range of responses to a range of threats.

Liam Fox: Our position on the nuclear deterrent is unequivocal: we are committed not only to retaining the current nuclear deterrent but to replacing it when necessary. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us whether he or any of his officials have had discussions with their US counterparts on the options for replacing Trident?

John Reid: First, I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not his party's defence spokesman at the time that its manifesto was written, but for a party that says that it is unequivocally committed to the nuclear deterrent not to have mentioned it in one sentence in its manifesto—[Interruption.] I understand that nothing that was written in the Conservative manifesto has any relationship with today's policies, but it would have been useful if such strident commitment to the nuclear deterrent had been in the manifesto.
	Secondly, although I have not received any papers on the principle or detail of nuclear deterrents, I have asked my officials to explore all the options in order to bring together the facts, figures, themes, assessments and assumptions about threats and responses in the nuclear field. Therefore, discussions have and will be ongoing between my officials and a range of people in order to assess and present the arguments to me. At that stage, we will have a wider discussion inside and no doubt outside Parliament.

Liam Fox: We look forward with relish to discussion on the continuity of the nuclear deterrent. On Saturday, the Belgian Foreign Minister said:
	"If we want an integrated European defence system, it is logical that it would integrate existing nuclear arsenals . . . A strong European branch will increase the equilibrium within NATO. The integration of existing nuclear arsenals in this system will also boost Europe's political clout . . . We cannot be in favour of a European defence system and act as if the French and British nuclear arsenals do not exist."
	Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to make it clear that there is not a snowball in hell's chance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent becoming part of any European defence structure, now or in the future?

John Reid: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that for some 40 years it has, and it is called NATO.

Iraq (Reservists)

Richard Ottaway: How many reservists are deployed in Iraq.

John Reid: Around 700 reservists are deployed in Iraq. That figure comprises more than 650 Army reserves, 28 Royal Air Force reserves, and 20 Royal Marine reserves.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will be aware that a similar number of reservists have been deployed in Iraq for several years, which is making the decision to cut the regulars by four regiments look somewhat absurd and short-sighted. Is he aware, however, that many reservists also have a home-based role in the civil contingency reaction forces? Given the substantial numbers of reservists deployed in Iraq, does he agree that as many are double-hatted—in a civil and military role—that is having a serious effect on the civil contingency role back in the UK?

John Reid: I do not accept the second point. As for the first, which concerned the increased role for reservists and, in particular, for the Territorial Army, and their integration into regular combat and operational configurations, that is exactly what was envisaged in the 1997–98 strategic defence review. It has resulted in great challenges for the TA and other reservists, but it has also resulted in great benefits. Anyone who speaks to regular forces now will know that the esteem in which our reserve forces are held and the plaudits that they receive from the regular forces are higher than ever, precisely because of their deep involvement in operational matters.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend know whether the more vociferous opponents of what we did in Iraq have congratulated all those in that country on the huge turnout—more than 70 per cent.—for the recent elections? Would it not now be appropriate to consider at what stage it would be right for British troops to leave, as our armed presence in Iraq was obviously never intended to be indefinite?

John Reid: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Notwithstanding the cries of the pessimists, not only have the Iraqi people shown by their turnout—despite all the threats of terrorism, death and destruction—just how much they value the chance of democracy, they have turned out in ever-increasing numbers. The turnout for the January elections was about 60 per cent., the turnout for the referendum was just under 65 per cent., and the turnout for the most recent elections was 70 per cent. Our troops and our people can be proud of the opportunity that we have extended to the Iraqi people.
	Simultaneously we have been building up the Iraqi security forces. There are now 223,000; when I first came to the Dispatch Box, there were around 80,000. That represents a considerable advance. We are making steady progress towards the conditions that will allow us to hand over to the Iraqis the protection of their own democracy, and then to withdraw to barracks and, eventually, from Iraq.

Lynne Featherstone: Has the Secretary of State engaged in any discussions on the gradual replacement of British troops from Muslim countries?

John Reid: I have not done so directly, although I have had discussions recently—for instance, this morning—with the chief of staff of the Omani armed forces, previously in Bahrain with a range of Gulf states, twice in Saudi Arabia and with other Arab and Muslim nations about the possibility of their playing a greater role as the Iraqi people take their security and sovereignty into their own hands. The beginnings of that unity will be in Iraq itself. I welcome indications from the largest party in Iraq, mainly Shia-based, that it intends to explore the possibilities of a Government of national unity. That would represent a major step forward in Iraq.

Chris Bryant: Does the Secretary of State agree that we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the reservists who played such an important role in Operation Telic, contributing not just military skills but, in some cases, skills gained in civilian life which have proved useful in Iraq? Does it worry him, though, that the percentage of reservists from the public as opposed to the private sector is currently so high? Will he urge private-sector companies around the country actively to encourage their staff to consider becoming reservists? They might bring back from the armed forces skills that would prove valuable in their civilian lives.

John Reid: I have no hesitation—I am sure that, on this occasion, I speak on behalf of those in all parts of the House—in congratulating our reserve forces on their contribution, not just in Iraq, but specifically in Iraq at the moment.
	I will undertake to examine the figures in the light of my hon. Friend's question, but my impression is that employers across a range of public and private sectors have been very supportive in allowing the reserve forces to play the enhanced role that they are currently playing. I thank all who are doing so, because I realise that it often involves some diminution of their own business prospects. It is a contribution that they make to the country as well as to their employers, and I am very grateful for it.

Derek Conway: The Secretary of State's praise for the TA and the reservists is well deserved and echoed across the House, but what impact are the scale and frequency of deployment having on recruitment into the TA and, in particular, on retention of non-commissioned officers, where there seems to be a growing problem?

John Reid: First, the House will want to understand that, under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, there is a limit on the number of times that someone can be called up in a given period. That limit cannot be breached. We have some recruitment problems in the TA, which is about 7,100 under strength out of 38,000—about 18 per cent. In fact, whatever establishment figure we have traditionally had for the TA, we always seem to have been about 18 per cent. short. I do not know whether that is governed by some immutable law. High employment and a range of other factors may be contributing to that shortfall, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I and my two ministerial colleagues take recruitment and retention in the armed forces, whether reservists, TA or Army, very seriously. I will not pretend to the House that everything is as it should be or we would like it to be, but we are making strenuous efforts to get there.

David Taylor: The bravery, determination and tenacity of the reservists in Iraq is second to none and of course comparable with that of the regular forces, but from time to time coverage in the regional press suggests that morale is not all it could be among reservists who are deployed in Iraq. That is a major factor in terms of recruitment and retention. Can the Secretary of State say a little about that concern?

John Reid: Morale is actually very good among our armed forces. On Friday, for example, I was at Headley Court to see some of our very brave servicemen who had been seriously injured in Iraq and elsewhere. I said then to the press, although my comments were not widely reported, that I never cease to be astounded and indeed bowled over by the courage, determination and endurance of our soldiers even after very serious injuries. I also said that I wished that some of the critics of our interventions abroad could show the same commitment to this country and the optimism to see things through as our servicemen and women.

Mark Harper: TA strength has fallen by a fifth in the past five years and one in 10 of those available for deployment are already mobilised. Are not the Government simply exploiting our volunteer reserves to make up for the holes in our Regular Army?

John Reid: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, which illustrates that, in all institutions, when vacancies arise and recruitment and retention is difficult, there are always people who will step into the breach. It is no different with our reserve forces. As to whether the TA and other reserve forces have been used primarily or exclusively because of shortages in the regular forces, I say to him honestly that that is not the case. I commend to him the strategic defence review that was written in 1997–98—

Gerald Howarth: You wrote it.

John Reid: Yes, I did. When I wrote that, I defended, as several Opposition Members will know, a much higher level of TA and reserve forces than some of the regulars wanted, but I made it plain at the time that the quid pro quo was that reserve forces had to get away from the characterisation of being weekend warriors and get involved regularly in operations, which I argued would be good for them as well as for the regulars. That is the primary reason that our reserve forces are playing a more important role than ever. That does not mean to say that there is not a problem with recruitment and retention both among regulars and the TA; there is, and we will try to do everything that we can to overcome it.

Afghanistan

Andrew Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan.

John Reid: The international community, including the UK, is in Afghanistan to support the Government of Afghanistan as they extend their authority across the entire country, to facilitate reconstruction and development, improve security and counter the narcotics trade. We have made progress in all those things, but a great deal remains to be done. That is why we remain committed to the expansion of the international security assistance force across Afghanistan.

Andrew Pelling: If more of our troops are deployed, what assessment has been made of the risks that they will face as a result of the separate command structures for ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom? What work has been done to mitigate the identified risks?

John Reid: A great deal of work has been done, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that more will be done. We have agreed to begin phase 3 in principle, but I have said that we will not begin it until I am convinced that we have the correct British configuration and adequate complementary economic development aid money. That money is especially important as a means to offer an alternative livelihood for farmers whose income from drugs has been withdrawn. The third requirement that must be met before phase 3 can begin is securing the correct multinational configuration in NATO. We have spent a great deal of time assessing the threat, and I am satisfied about the first and second criteria. We are in discussions with our allies about the third criterion, and I shall bring my final decision on that to the House as soon as I have made it. I do not think that that will be too long from today.

Si�n Simon: In my constituency, the parents of soldiers are enormously proud of what their children have achieved in Afghanistan over the course of the Bonn agreement. However, they will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said today about the likely expansion this year of ISAF's role in Afghanistan, and about the larger role that British forces will play in less stable parts of the country. That is bound to cause those parents worry and concern, so will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say a few words on the subject?

John Reid: I understand the concerns of people in our armed forces, and their relatives, parents and loved ones. However, we would all do well to recall why we are in Afghanistan. We are there because, under cover of the terrible Taliban regime, it was used to launch a terrorist attackwithout our intervention it would have become a series of attacksthat resulted in the massacre of thousands of people in the US. The country would have been used as a base against the west in general, and I have no doubt that it would have been used for attacks against this country in due course. We are in Afghanistan with the UNthe united world authorityto prevent terrorists from using that country used as a base against us. I do not pretend that the south of Afghanistan is in any way more benign than those areas where we already have a presence, but the dangers and risks associated with handing that country back to the Taliban and the terrorists are greater than any others that we face. We have no intention of handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban or the terroristsor to both.

Michael Moore: In today's edition of the Financial Times, the NATO Secretary-General draws a clear distinction between ISAF's stabilisation role and the counter-insurgency efforts led by the US. He says that the
	allies have agreed command arrangements to ensure that the two missions do not get in each other's way.
	Beyond that basic requirement, what arrangements are in place to ensure that, as one general put it, NATO does not
	work on reconstruction one day and the bulldozers of
	Operation Enduring Freedom
	flatten everything the next?
	The Secretary of State said last month that there was not a complete distinction between counter-terrorist and counter-narcotics activities. How will those different demands be reconciled?

John Reid: They will be reconciled through two separate missions: seek and destroy against terrorists; and building and reconstructing Afghanistan's democracy, governance, economic development and security forces. However, only someone who is dreadfully naive would think that we will be allowed to carry out the second of those tasksthe NATO task, in which we will be involved when we go to the southunhindered by any attacks. The House will expect us to say that if our troops are attacked while reconstructing Afghanistan, or helping and protecting the aid workers, or helping President Karzai's Government to extend, we will robustly defend ourselves. That is why I said that we cannot draw a complete distinction between the missions, but there will still be two. We will attempt to co-ordinate them, at a stage after phase 3, by establishing a double-hatted sequence in one General, so that there will be maximum co-ordination of two separate missions. We are not changing our mission to one of anti-terrorism. We are still there for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but we will defend ourselves if attacked.

Ann Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the security of women in Afghanistan? Are they now able to go out alone without fear of punishment? This is a particularly important issue for the thousands of widows there, who want to become economically active again.

John Reid: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Obviously, the primary reason that we went into Afghanistan was to ensure protection against its being used as a terrorist base against us. But in addition, in the light of the opium produced there90 per cent. of the narcotics on our streets come from Afghanistanand of the terrible treatment of Afghanistan's citizenry, particularly women, under the Taliban, the removal of that regime from the shoulders of the Afghan people was an undoubted boon. I was there recently, helping British soldiers to open a school. The opening was attended by hundreds, because the school allows young girls to be educated. Under the Taliban, it was not only undesirable to educate girls; assisting their education was an illegal offence punishable by imprisonment. So regarding women and the education of female children, there is a complete difference between the situation in Afghanistan today and only 10 years ago. That difference is spreading across Afghanistan, and we should be justly proud of that.

Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the height of the British Raj, when we had 100,000 troops in the Indian subcontinent, the greatest of our viceroys advised the British Government of the day on no account to allow this country to become involved in what he described as the bloodthirsty convolutions of Afghan politics? Does not the history of three Anglo-Afghan wars, and the more recent experience of the Russians in that country during the 1980s, show the urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to act on that advice?

John Reid: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose learning and lucidity in respect of these issues is always to be admired, there are two differences between the expeditions that he mentions and today's intervention. First, all those were imperialist in design; this one is not. Secondly, none of them was at the invitation of a democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. The lessons of history are very important and I do not diminish them at all; nor do I suggest for one minute that we are embarked on a project in Afghanistan that will be without its difficulties, or that will be finished, for the Afghanis, within five or 10 years. I do not mock or diminish what the hon. Gentleman says, but today's situation is significantly differentsufficiently so to lead us to believe that there is an imperative to stay there. Finally, all alternatives are much more dangerous and risky for this country. We cannot allow the handing back of Afghanistan to the Taliban fundamentalists and the al-Qaeda terrorists whom they protected to happen. To do so would be to abdicate our responsibility to the people of this country.

Michael Clapham: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend had to say, but he will be aware that there is a growing insurgency in the south and south-east of Afghanistan and that the warlords are becoming entrenched as they subvert the political process and control the narcotics trade. Does he think he will have the resources necessary to implement a crop substitution, which will be required, and to build structures in the province of the integrity required to extend the democratic writ?

John Reid: My hon. Friend makes some perfectly reasonable points. I would not pretend that Afghanistan is more benign in the south than in the north, but I do not think his description was absolutely correct; he may not have caught up with events, but the Governor of Helmand has been replaced by a new governor, Engineer Daud, who is, I think, pursuing more vigorously policies less easily open to accusationsI choose my words carefully hereof corruption or connection with some of the nefarious trades that go on. Nevertheless, the area is a difficult one to go into, and I can only assure my hon. Friend that one reason why I have spent so much time on, and have as yet, despite all the pressure, made no announcement on, the details for go-ahead, in spite of its being agreed in principle, is that I wanted to be satisfied on some of the very points that he has raised. In particular, there must be sufficient economic development and financial assistance for the area.

James Arbuthnot: Does the Secretary of State accept the importance of the principle of the application of overwhelming force? Is he not a little concerned that the small size of the deployment being considered in relation to the south of Afghanistan does not satisfy the principle of overwhelming force?

John Reid: No. I accept the principle but think that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are awry. When I finally announce what will go in, if we go ahead, he will find that in comparison with the number, or suspected number, of Taliban, we are considering far more than we have there at present or than would be required by the doctrine of overwhelming force. At the moment, in areas of Oruzgan for instance, the number of Americans in the north of Helmand province are 20 and 20. In Helmand province itself, the Americans are numbered not more than 100 or so. The idea that there is already a huge presence or that there is a huge presence of, for instance, Taliban is not necessarily correct.
	That does not mean to say that those who are there are not dangerous. A relatively small number of terrorists, particularly those unconstrained by any convention of morality or legality and prepared to murder civilians and to make no distinction between civilians and combatants, can be very strong. I do not believe, however, that we are putting in, or considering putting in, a force of insufficient configuration of size.

Julian Lewis: When British forces come into contact with terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, as the Secretary of State has conceded they surely will, to whom will those suspects be handed over, by whom will they primarily be interrogated, and in which countries will those interrogations take place?

John Reid: Without wishing to seem over philosophical, that depends. It depends on what people are arrested for: is it acts of terrorism or something primarily to do with narcotics or insurgency? It depends at what time arrest happens. It depends on the state of the judicial system that will be built. It depends on whether there are prison facilities. It depends on which of the allies is working alongside usfor example, the Australians, the Danes or the Dutch. I very much welcome the fact that the Dutch Cabinet have unanimously agreed that the Dutch ought to go in, although that is subject to their Parliament discussing the matter. If the hon. Gentleman were asking a specific question about specific cases, I should be able to respond.

Julian Lewis: Terrorists.

John Reid: I understand that he is saying terrorists, but I am not sure whether that includes insurgents or whether insurgents would include those involved in the narcotics trade. I shall write to him, if we decide to go ahead. I have to point out that I have not yet pressed the final button. When I do, I will come to the House and many of these matters, which we have already discussed in detail, can then be discussed in detail.

Infantry Deployment

David Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the adequacy and availability of British infantry to fulfil additional urgent deployments.

Adam Ingram: Our plans ensure that we have forces of appropriately high readiness, including the infantry, in place to meet urgent contingent operations.

David Evennett: Has the Minister seen the article in The Daily Telegraph today entitled, Manning Crisis for Paras, which states that the Parachute regiment is suffering severe manpower shortage and is about 10 per cent. down on full manning levels? Can it really be true that the problem is so bad that a battalion being sent to Afghanistan will need
	100 regular infantry soldiers to bring it up to strength?
	What is the Minister doing to get the regiment up to full strength

Mr. Speaker: Order. There should be only one supplementary, and I counted two.

Adam Ingram: I do not know which two you counted, Mr. Speaker, but I shall try to answer one of them. I did see the article and I saw other articles today, including one in The Herald that said that the Black Watch were going, but they are not. If I were to respond to every hare set running by a journalist, we would be here all day answering questions to no avail, because they have to be built on reality. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated the issues that we have with recruitment and retention. We are aware of those issues. It is probably true to say that most battalions are under strength when deployed and have to be strengthened by drawing in support from other battalions. That has been the case for a long time and sophisticated military knowledge is brought to bear to ensure that those people who are put in have all the necessary training and the appropriate equipment so that they can deliver on the task that we have set them.

Angus Robertson: There should be a 24-month gap between operations, and it is the Scots Guards who are reportedly going back to Basra after only eight monthsof course, we wish them well and our thoughts are with their families. How small does the tour interval need to be before the Ministry of Defence concedes that there is overstretch?

Adam Ingram: I apologise, because I said the Black Watch when I should have said the Scots Guards, but they are not going either. The hon. Gentleman is right about tour intervals. We set the interval at 24 months between each six-month operational tour, which equates to one tour in each 30-month period. The average tour interval for the infantry at 1 January was 21.1 months. Clearly, there are pressures on some of our troops and some of the key enablers, but the hon. Gentleman's position on this interests me. I do not think that he would deploy troops anywhere, be it in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else, without his party saying that they were operating under the butcher's apron, which is what they have called the Union flag.

Julian Brazier: May I welcome the fact that the most recent deployment of territorial infantry has been in formed companies or platoons, including a company of Paras that is just going out? I urge the Minister of State to look again at the mostly Regular Army-driven paper, which proposes converting TA infantry companies into little more than recruiting organisations and squaring the circle by expanding the number of full-time instructors who are non-deployable. That is not what the Territorial Army at the working level wants.

Adam Ingram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at restructuring and the best usability and deployability of the TA and the reserves, whichas discussed earlieris part of the original construct, post-SDR. We take into account the views of serving members of the TA, but we have to balance those views with what we believe to be right and appropriate. All views will be taken into account to ensure that we are moving forward with the right construct, the right purpose and the right numbers, if that can be achieved through progressive recruiting.

Single Living Accommodation

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans his  Department has to improve single living accommodation for members of the armed forces.

Don Touhig: We value our service personnel and we believe that they deserve the best accommodation. The Defence Estates project SLAMsingle living accommodation modernisationaims to deliver around 22,000 bed spaces by 2013 at a cost of 1   billion. The project has already delivered about 4,000 new bed spaces.
	In addition, other projects, including private finance initiatives, will deliver a further 3,340 bed spaces in this financial year. This will give a total of 10,000 bed spaces delivered by those projects since financial year 200304. A further 47,000 are planned to be delivered by 2013.

Alison Seabeck: I thank the Minister for his response. He is clearly aware of the problem of the conditions in which many single people serving in the armed forces live. Improvements have been made to officers' quarters already at Plymouth, Devonport, but when can we expect the bulk of the improvements to living conditions for other service personnel to begin? At the moment, they are living in conditions that are not fit for purpose for the 21st century.

Don Touhig: We fully appreciate how important this work is, and I can tell my hon. Friend that project Armada is seeking to improve single living accommodation at Devonport and runs parallel with project SLAM. On completion, project Armada will provide high-quality single living accommodation and associated support services for 1,500 service personnel. We intend to continue this work and accelerate it right across the country.

Points of Order

David Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of Ministers' relations with individual Members. The generation company, nPower Renewables, has made an application to the Department of Trade and Industry for consent to develop a very large wind farm off the coast of my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Conwy.
	On 1 December, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking if I could see him to relate to him the concerns of a large number of my constituents. On 21 December, I received a letter from the Minister for Energy informing me that
	it would be inappropriate for me to meet you to discuss the application because it could prejudice the Secretary of State's consideration of the application in due course.
	I was therefore surprised to read on 20 January an article written by the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) in The Pioneer (North Wales) in which she said:
	On Tuesday, I had a meeting with the Trade and Industry Secretary to discuss issues surrounding the planning application for the Gwynt y Mr offshore wind farm.
	The position is therefore that although neither the Secretary of State nor his Energy Minister are willing to meet me and hear my constituents' concerns, the Secretary of State has apparently been quite happy to conduct a meeting with the hon. Member for Conwy and to hear her constituents' concerns. Is it right that the Secretary of State and his Energy Minister should behave with such an apparent lack of even-handedness?

Chris Ruane: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not need to come in on a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. There is no need to give notice of a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. Let me answer.
	I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that I will not get drawn into the specific case, but I, like every Member in the House, have a constituency. One of the things that helps me immensely is the fact that I am able to tell my constituents that I will seek a meeting with a Minister. That is a very good facility, and it is something that constituents like their Member of Parliament to do. So, without getting drawn into the specific case, all I would say is that when Ministers receive a request from an hon. Member, I hope that they take it very seriously and have a meeting with the Back Bencher concerned. That is very important, particularly for constituents.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I was advised by a constituent, Tess Finch-Lees, this morning that an associate of hers, Mr. Ahmed Elzobir, was in Khartoum yesterday on behalf of the Darfur centre for human rights, and in the company of a number of other people who were part of a delegation of African and international civic society leaders attending the African Union summit.
	My point is that Mr. Elzobir and approximately 30 other human rights and pro-democracy activists were arrested by the Sudanese security forces for peacefully taking part in a consultation with the Sudan Social Development Organisation and the Sudan Organisation Against Torture. Given that four of the people arrested were British nationals and that the Sudanese security forces are notorious for their practice of tortureboth physical and psychologicalI wonder whether anything can be done to persuade the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about the attitude and intentions of the British Government in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record and he will know that it is not a matter for me.

Betty Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that my name was mentioned just before I arrived in the Chamber. May I seek your guidance? Is it not common courtesy to inform an hon. Member if their name is going to be mentioned in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made no criticism of the hon. Lady. Her name was mentioned because she is his constituency neighbour and had a meeting with a Minister. However, I assure the hon. Lady that there was no attack on her.

David Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should quit while he is ahead.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Government of Wales Bill
	  
	[1st Allotted Day]

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 200506, Government White Paper: Better Governance for Wales, HC 551, and the Government's response thereto, Third Special Report of the Committee, Session 200506, HC 839.]
	Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Clause 92
	  
	Assembly measures

Lembit �pik: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 50, line 5, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 50, line 5, leave out 'National Assembly for Wales' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 61, in page 50, line 7, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 62, in page 50, line 8, leave out first 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 96, in page 50, line 8, leave out second 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 63, in page 50, line 10, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 64, in page 50, line 11, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 65, in page 50, line 12, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 66, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from 'be' to end of line 6 and insert
	'A Parliament for Wales to be known as the Senedd.'.
	No. 85, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 86, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 87, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 88, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 89, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 90, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 92, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
	No. 93, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.

Lembit �pik: May I welcome you, Sir Alan, to what will unquestionably be the most exciting debate that we have had about Welsh constitutional matters so far this year?
	The amendments relate to nomenclature, and our first debate focuses on a point of principle that in many ways marks the dividing line between the different visions of devolution that each party has. The name of the Administration is fundamental to what it represents and the way in which it is perceived. We need to ask ourselves what we want the Administration to represent. For the Welsh Lib Dems, the answer is simple. We want a strong and autonomous Welsh body with primary powers. In other words, we want a Welsh Parliament: a Welsh Senedd.
	Wales is not just another region and its Administration should not be just another Assembly. We are not talking about the west midlands or the north-eastWales is a proud nation, so its Administration should have the powers and a title that reflect its status.
	My worry is that we are in danger of blowing an historic opportunity. Of the four parties in Wales, only one is opposed to the devolution project. There is certainly only one that believes that giving more powers to the Assembly would be
	like giving a latchkey, a bank account, and shotgun to a 10 year old
	and that
	these people should not be trusted with more powers under any circumstances.
	Presumably, that shows the new progressive face of the Conservative party. I look forward to finding out how things might change during today's debate, but that view seems to have more in common with Whitehall in the 18th century than Wales in the 21st century.
	The other two Opposition parties that are represented today believe that Wales is something more than a troublesome colony. The Government know full well that they should have followed the path drawn up by the Richard commission. Had they done so, they would have had our full support, but instead they have been timid when they should have been bold.
	We have tabled amendments that point the way to a powerful and capable Welsh Senedd. Using the title Senedd would be a sensible signal of the Government's intent. If they are serious about fulfilling the devolution project and getting to the so-called stage 3, at which the Welsh political body would have primary law-making powers, they should be happy to use the name Senedd. Obviously, we look forward to hearing what Ministers have to say. I hope that we will get support from Plaid Cymru, and I will listen with great interest to what the Conservatives have to say. I should point out now that we would like to push this matter to a vote because of its iconic importance.

Albert Owen: I am a little confused. First, the hon. Gentleman says that it is demeaning to call the body an Assembly, because that would mean that we were not a nationyet France has a National Assembly, of which it is very proud. Secondly, he wants the body to be called the Seneddbut now that we have a bilingual policy in Wales, we can call it either the National Assembly for Wales or Cynulliad Cenedlaethol dros Cymru, so what does he propose as the English version of Senedd?

Lembit �pik: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a matter of translation. I think that the French, on grasping the relationship between the word Assembly and the word Senedd in the context of what we are seeking to achieve in Wales, would understand the Liberal Democrats' aspiration to use Senedd. Hon. Members, of course, may hold a different view. On the second point, it seems to me that calling the Assembly the Welsh Senedd would be a fairly easy way to describe it. The word senedd would work in either language, so I see no confusion there.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Lembit �pik: No. I am about to finish and Members can make speeches of their own.
	Scotland has a Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Liberal Democrats who helped to guide the original devolution legislation through in 1997 were always apprised of the difference. We felt that Wales was getting a second-class arrangement in comparison with Scotland. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider that just as Scotland has a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for Wales to have a Welsh Senedd.
	We believe that this is an iconic matter. We will listen to whatever contributions are made, but we sincerely hope that Opposition parties, and the more progressive people on the Government Benches, will see fit to support the amendment.

David Mundell: I was disappointed not to be able to contribute to the debate on 9 January. I know well, from reading early-day motion 1421, that Welsh Members take an active interest in the deliberations of the Scottish Parliament, and this is reciprocated by Scottish Members in respect of the National Assembly of Wales[Hon. Members: For Wales!] I mean the National Assembly for Wales. In any event, the Scottish Parliament provides an important point of reference in the explanatory notes on the Bill.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, and it is pretty much the same as what he said in the debate in 1997, when the Liberal Democrats made the same proposal. Now, as then, we are not convinced of its merits. Indeed, our view is even more pronounced now than when it was eloquently put on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
	The term Welsh Assembly has been in common parlance for some six and half years among the people of Wales. Somealthough not those on the Conservative Benchesmay take its name in vain; others may speak more highly of it. It would bring little benefit, other than to signwriters and stationers, who are already well catered for in Wales, to change the name at this stage.

Roger Williams: As the hon. Gentleman's party now ostensibly supports furtherance of the devolution settlement, would he be in favour of the Assembly being called the Welsh Parliament or the Parliament of Wales?

David Mundell: We are not in favour of that proposal unless it is the clear wish of the people of Wales, as evidenced in a referendum.
	We should not forget that it is not the name or, dare I say, the powers of a body that deliver it recognition, authority and respect. It is how it behaves and what it delivers for the people. Many bodies and organisations have sought to operate with a different name but have had mixed success, because ultimately it is the public and what they want that matters, and in this case they clearly recognise the Welsh Assembly.
	If we reflect on the work of the Richard commission, we see that it is clear that on a number of aspects voters in Wales are confused, as I think we shall hear throughout the consideration of this Bill, about the exact role of the Assembly, just as people are in relation to the Scottish Parliament. In light of that confusion and of the need to address it, I see no benefit in moving forward with this measure at this time when the effort should be directed towards extending understanding of the Welsh Assembly. Accordingly, we oppose the amendments.

Elfyn Llwyd: The amendment is worthy of support. Adverting to what has just been said about some perceived confusion, I should say that the new building in Cardiff is to be known as the Senedd. Therefore, far from creating more confusion, the proposal might even clear up confusion. I do not in principle see why it should not be called a Senedd. In future, who knows, there might be regional assemblies in England, and a distinction must be drawn between the legislative body for the whole of Wales and a regional assembly in England. Therefore, the amendments are sensible.
	I do not want to dwell too long on the amendments, but if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) is to divide the Committee on this issue, we will support him. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate these amendments and we will support him in a vote.

David Davies: I am surprised that Plaid Cymru Members are choosing to support the amendment, because I would have thought that, for different reasons, we would all have an interest in opposing it. I oppose the amendment because, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) has pointed out, the word Senedd translates, as probably everyone here knows, as parliament. To suggest that the Welsh Assembly should be called the Welsh equivalent of parliament would add a lot of confusion. I would not have thought that that would be in the interests of Plaid Cymru, as it would suggest that a parliament exists, but at the moment we have only the Welsh Assembly. It would almost be a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act to describe the Welsh Assembly as a parliament. I and many of my colleagues would like it to remain a Welsh Assembly. Therefore, we do not support the idea of calling it a parliament, as that would add to the inevitability of it becoming one.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for my benefit and for that of others whether the new debating chamber is to be called a Senedd? Would not calling the debating chamber as well as the rest of the institution a Senedd cause confusion?

David Davies: It will certainly cause a lot of confusion. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct that the debating chamber is to be called a Senedd, but I am afraid that he will have to ask others why, because they certainly did not consult the hon. Member for Monmouth when coming up with its name. He will surely recognise, as his colleagues appear to, that at the moment we have the National Assembly, and that, we are told, is what it will remain even after this legislation goes through. To call it something else, even in Welsh, will add to the confusion and I therefore suggest that we oppose the amendment.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said in introducing this group of amendments that it was iconic. Basically, he and others believe that they should have a parliament for Wales, but the Government of Wales Act 1998 and this Bill do not create a parliament.
	The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)the name of his constituency is even longer than minemade the point that there was an extensive debate on the term Senedd in the Committee on the Government of Wales Act 1998 and it was decided then that the title Assembly was appropriate. Although I understand the position taken by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the Government and the Assembly are happy with the title National Assembly for Wales. Several hon. Members referred to the risk of causing further confusion and the possibility that people would start to refer to the body as parliament, which could cause it to be confused with this place.
	All hon. Members agree on the proposals in the Bill for the separation of the legislature and the Executive. One of the reasons why we need that separation is to give clarity to the devolution settlement in Walesthe public need to understand who is responsible for decisions. In putting that separation into effect, we are sticking with the terms that have gained common currency in the past four years: the Assembly and the Wales Assembly Government. It has been argued that a new name for the Assembly would bring home to people the difference between the Government and the legislative body, but I do not believe that that argument is justified. The fact is that people have got used to calling the Assembly the Assembly and changing its name to the Senedd would only cause confusion.
	Given that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has said that he will press the amendment to a Division, I urge the Committee to reject it.

Lembit �pik: In our extensive debate today we have more or less rehearsed the debates that those of us who were in Parliament in 1997 had then. For that reason, it is appropriate to be concise in responding to the key points made.
	We need to start looking at the big picture. We are not dealing with legislation for the next few years: it is likely that the decisions that we make today will be in force for decades and that the institution itself will exist for centuries. It is therefore appropriate that, six or seven years into the Assembly's life, we get the terminology right. There is a difference of view, but I am surprised that the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) think that people would be confused if Senedd meant a building as well as an institution. I presume that they are speaking from experiencethat on at least one occasion the hon. Member for Monmouth got lost because both the building in which we are debating and the political institution of which we are a part are often referred to as the British Parliament, but I have never got lost like that and I have never heard of other politicians doing so. More than anything, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, changing the name would create consistency between the bricks and mortar and the politics of Wales. Hon. Members need not fear: in 10 years' time, Assembly will have been comfortably replaced by Senedd.

David Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not lost, but does he agree that people will get lost if we have an Assembly in Wales called a Senedd, which implies a parliament; a parliament in Scotland that is a   parliament, and regional assemblies throughout England that will not be parliaments at all? Surely that is a recipe for getting lost.

Lembit �pik: People looking for the Senedd are less likely to get lost if they have to go to a building called the Senedd. In the hon. Gentleman's logic, he must be claiming that people are more likely to get lost if they have to go a building called the Senedd to find something called the Assembly.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is correct. He is almost entirely duplicating the debate that took place in the first sitting in Committee on the previous Government of Wales Bill. As the Assembly grows and gradually acquires more power, is there any reason why it should not apply, under field 13 in schedule 5part of the convoluted process put in place by the Governmentto have control over the name of the Assembly and to amend its name in the future? Does the hon. Gentleman see any reason why that should not fall under field 13 in schedule 5? Perhaps the Minister could say whether that would be possible.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I have not thought through that approach, but if in theory it is possible, perhaps that is one way in which those who resist the amendment today intend to proceed.
	Why are we being so timid? The point of the Bill is to give Wales what it deserves. Those of us who are committed to devolution at a strategic level and in principleI include Plaid Cymru in thatthink that we should now generate parity with Scotland. Part of that is changing the name of the Welsh Assembly to something more in keeping with what Scotland has. We think Welsh Senedd is the right phrase. I understand why the change of name would be resisted by those in the Chamber who are not minded to provide strategic parity with Scotland, but we are not making legislation for the next six yearswe are making legislation that will outlive our political careers. We must therefore be a little more strategic than worrying that there will be a brief period of confusion, probably lasting months, and at the most lasting a few years, as people get used to the new name.

Nick Ainger: To help the hon. Gentleman and to respond to the question put by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), she is correct that under schedule 5, field 13, it would be possible under the Order-in-Council procedures and the Assembly measures procedures to change the name of the National Assembly.

Lembit �pik: That intervention is helpful. However, I shall press the amendment to a Division all the same, for the simple reason that this is an opportunity to establish the intended destination of the various parties with regard to the current legislation and parity with Scotland.

Albert Owen: I was not confused when I started listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I am now. Is he honestly suggesting that just by changing the name, he is changing the aspirations of different parties? The argument that I put forward earlier about simple translation is an important one. When people refer in Welsh to this Parliament, they call it San Steffan, the historic name of St. Stephen's, the chapel where the Chamber first met. That is the simple level of language and translation with which I am dealing. I understand and respect the aspirations of the hon. Gentleman and his party, but if he intends to divide on that basis, surely he is doing so just for the sake of it.

Lembit �pik: We have demonstrated in this first debate that hon. Members are being concise. There has not been an undue amount of discursive commentary.
	In conclusion, I shall explain why it is important to divide on the matter. Although it may not be so important to the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen), there are many who take seriously the title of the Welsh Assembly. They think it is the wrong name and they aspire to Welsh Senedd. We should not demean the importance of the terminology that we use for the institution that we are modifying through the Bill. Of course we are not changing the world by changing the name of the Welsh Assembly, but in one significant and demonstrable way we will illustrate that we change our intent as to how strategic we wish that institution to be.
	As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham rightly pointed out, some of us made these points at an early stage in our previous debate nine years ago, when the Welsh Assembly was set up. It is natural for us to be consistent and to pursue the matter again. Our point has now been made and I hope that, having reflected on the matter, some hon. Members will now be persuaded to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 398.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: Before we proceed, may I say to the Committee that the occupant of the Chair should be referred to as Chairman or by name? The term Deputy Chairman is not applicable in these circumstances. As we have three days to go, I thought it as well to make that clear.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in clause 92, page 50, line 9, at end insert
	'following resolutions of each House of Parliament, both prior to and after the enactment of each such measure'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 162, in clause 92, page 50, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 177, in clause 101, page 55, line 25, after 'by', insert
	'resolution of each House of Parliament prior to their submission for approval by'.
	No. 178, in clause 101, page 55, line 27, after 'by', insert
	'resolution of each House of Parliament prior to its submission for approval by'.
	No. 179, in clause 101, page 55, line 37, after 'by', insert
	'resolution of each House of Parliament prior to its submission for approval by'.

Dominic Grieve: We come now to an important part of the consideration of part 3 in respect of Assembly Measures. As we pointed out briefly on Second Reading, the problem concerning the Assembly Measures procedure is that it is a way of getting around the necessity of holding a referendum to give primary legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. As we explained and is our view, while there may be arguments for or against giving primary legislative power to the Welsh Assembly, that is a matter for the people of Wales to determine if they so wish and a referendum is the essential precondition for doing that.
	The problem of the route that appears to commend itself to the Government and that is contained in part 3 is that it envisages achieving roughly the same outcome by a mechanism that does not require a referendum and does not give primary legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. It allows the Welsh Assembly to enact Orders in Council, which are equivalent in scope to primary legislation.
	We exist in this House to scrutinise legislation. We may not do it as well as we should. Guillotines, lack of time and a host of other problems, some of them archaic procedure, do not lend themselves to our always doing it properly. Nevertheless, the process of a Billthe process on which we are embarked this afternoonis important. We are here not just to pass principles of legislation but, normally, to look at its detail. As most of us know, the process by which we examine the detail of legislation, if people are prepared to bother to come into the Chamber, sit, listen and participate, can improve legislation. The people who go up to the Committee corridors and listen to a Standing Committee are often pleasantly surprised to note the spirit in which the debate is conducted and sometimes the willingness of the Government to accept proposals.

Eric Forth: Not very often.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right, unfortunately. If the Government listened more often, some of the nonsense that we have occasionally enacted into law would not have happened.
	Out of the 318 amendments that I tabled to the Proceeds of Crime Bill, I succeeded in getting about four accepted.

Kevin Brennan: Four too many.

Dominic Grieve: The criticisms that have been heaped on that legislation suggest that it was at least four too few, if not 314 too few.
	On the whole, it is a pretty good process but the problem is that the Government intend to take the detailed scrutiny of the legislation away from this House and to give it to the Welsh Assembly. Not only that, but the process that they are proposing to the Committee to get around the problem of not enacting primary legislation entails a diminution of scrutiny and a raising of the power of the Secretary of Statethe Executiveto interfere with the legislative process. Throughout the procedure in part 3, it is the Secretary of State who will be exercising a form of tutelage over the way in which the Welsh Assembly carries out its functions. He has the power to block and to interfere and, in many cases, he will be able to exert influence because he can threaten to stop the procedure.
	A further difficulty was explained to the House on Second Reading by the Under-Secretary, although I think that he got the procedure wrong.

Nick Ainger: indicated assent.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister nods, but we have since had a correction. The difficulty that I am describing is that the House will be asked to vote on an Order in Council that cannot be amended but which sets out the parameters of what the Welsh Assembly legislates on. After that, the House has no further role in the process.
	The Secretary of State made it clear that the Government will do all that they can to provide information about a proposed Assembly Measure before the House votes on it, which will happen at the end of the normal short debate on an Order in Council. The problem arises once the House has voted on the proposal and the Secretary of State has approved it: after its own scrutiny process, the Assembly might produce a Measure substantially different in detail from the draft proposal on which this House votes.
	That problem must be inherent in the procedure that the Secretary of State proposes. Although this House will retain responsibility for primary legislation in this country, there is a danger that it will abdicate some of that responsibility.

Peter Hain: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but an MP is sent to the House to legislate. If the people of Wales make it clear in a referendum that they want the Welsh Assembly to have responsibility for primary legislation, and if the Government hand over that responsibility, the result will be similar to what happened with Scotlandthis House will relinquish some of its power, and therefore shed an element of sovereignty.
	The Secretary of State will accept that, when the Government's proposed procedure is a hybrid, the responsibility for good governance remains here. However, the Government's proposals envisage that this House will part with its responsibility in response to a draft document that cannot be reconsidered. That is what worries me: once the principle of the Order in Council has been accepted, the Secretary of State and the Assembly will resolve the details of legislation and Parliament will have no further opportunity to consider the matter.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman and his party have to decide whether they are on the side of the Assembly, and whether they favour the proposed modest extension of its powers through Orders in Council and the Assembly Measures that will follow. The Opposition are in a bind: when it comes to the crunch, they do not want to give the Assembly more powers because they would prefer to retain all the power in Westminster. I stress that nothing will be decided other than as a result of this House's express authority, which will confer on the Assembly the ability to promote Measures in the area designated by the Order in Council. The House and Parliament will remain in charge.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for that intervention, because I do not think that the Secretary of State understands the procedure of this House at all. This is the Committee stage of a Bill that is an important constitutional measure. It is being held on the Floor of the House so that hon. Members, and especially Opposition Members, can probe and question the Government about their proposals.
	The headline in The Western Mail today was Hain accuses Tories of a bid to 'castrate' Assembly. The Secretary of State said that the amendments that we have tabled
	are a total insult to the people of Wales. Not only do they prove that the Tories still don't understand devolution and don't trust the Assembly. They show that the Tories are trying to turn the clock back and reverse the outcome of the 1997 referendum.
	Most extraordinarily of all, he alleged that Tory amendments to the Bill would involve not only a referendum first but the clearing of a long list of hurdles.
	The Secretary of State has been in this House longer than I have and he can read the amendments that we have tabled. May I gently point out to him that some of them adopt the alternative position? That seems not to have dawned on him in considering the Bill. [Interruption.] He says, They are all down there. This is a classic illustration of all that is wrong with this Government. What does he think that we are supposed to be doing here today? We are supposed to be scrutinising and probing and putting proposals to the Government that might indeed commend themselves to him. Yet all he does is to lump our amendments together, put out a propaganda statement that is worthy of South Africa's apartheid regime in terms of trying to blacken one's opponents, and tell the Committee that this is a wrecking procedure. It is nothing of the kind. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State would listen, he would discover those areas of the Bill that we think could be improved, and those about which we are concerned.
	One way in which we might address the problem that I identified is to provide a mechanism through which the House of Commonsand, indeed, the House of Lordscan both vote to empower the Assembly to work out the detail of such legislation and enact it, and vote on that legislation once it has been prepared, so as to give its seal of approval. That mechanism does not involve 16 more hoopsit involves one.

Chris Ruane: That is not devolution.

Dominic Grieve: We will come back to that point in a moment. How is such a mechanism any less, or more, devolutionary than the Government's proposal in part 3, which is not devolution, either? They are proposing to substitute government by primary legislation in respect of important laws with government by Order in Council. The Secretary of State seems not to understand that that is an assertion of Executive authority, not legislative authority. I fear that he has put together this proposal because he knows that he cannot satisfy either half of his party on the question of whether to proceed with the transfer of primary legislative functions and nor does he have a clue whether he would win a referendum. [Interruption.]
	The Secretary of State, having asked me a number of questions, is disappearing from the Chamber. He asked me rhetorically whether we are in favour of this legislation or against it, so let me make our position clear. We have reservations about giving the Assembly more power, but we are absolutely clear that, if there is to be a transfer to it of primary legislative power, such a transfer should be put to the people of Wales in a referendum. If that is what they want, we will of course accept their view, because referendums are there for that precise purpose. What we are very worried about is part 3 of the Bill. As it stands, there will be no referendum in respect of part 3. There will be no formal consultation of the people of Wales whatsoever. The Government propose to take away this House's power to scrutinise and enact legislation, and to create a hybrid instrument involving the Executive and the Assembly governing by Order in Council. They say that that is a better procedure, but by any objective analysis, it diminishes democratic accountability at every level. Indeed, we in this House have often criticised the system of governance by Order in Council for Northern Ireland. While I accept that the analogy with Northern Ireland is not perfect because Northern Ireland does not have its own Assembly to carry out any function at all, it remains the case that the Government's understanding of how the constitution in this country works is woeful.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend rightly said that referendums have become one of the accepted mechanisms whereby people are asked whether they want more powers or fewer powers to be given to this or that body. Does he, in the same context, accept, on the same basis, that referendums can, and occasionally should, be used to ask people whether they want the body to exist at all? In other words, a referendum can be used to give, but on occasion also be used to take away.

Dominic Grieve: To my mind, properly conducted referendums are on issues on which Government ought to give people choices. They ought not, in fact, to labour to influence the result, but to set out the options and ask whether people want them. That is how referendums were always supposed to work. The trouble is that Napoleon III rapidly turned them into a form of executive and parliamentary dictatorship, using them for that purpose. This Government have been adept at picking up the tip.
	If there were a clearly manifested desire among the people of Wales for a referendum on whether to get rid of the Assembly, the House would have to listen very carefully. For present purposes, and for the purposes of the Bill, we are content to operate on the principle that, so far as we can see, the Assembly as set up, with its imperfections, appears to have a sufficient measure of support to justify its continued existence. What we will seek to do, therefore, is to see whether there are ways in which we can improve the working of the Assembly, either by granting the option, as the Secretary of State and the Minister want to do, of letting the Assembly have primary legislative powers, or by separating the executive from the legislature, which we entirely agree with.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I will in a moment.
	What we are not prepared to do is allow the Government to manipulate the constitution simply because it suits them to do so to satisfy the tendencies in the Labour party that are pulling two ways. I regret to say that that is what part 3 is all about. The Minister's party is split. There are many in Wales who have no desire that primary legislation powers should be granted. In any case, the Minister knows, that there is no possibility of the Welsh people voting in a referendum for primary legislative powers.
	That raises an interesting question: if the Welsh people do not want the powers in that form, why should they have them thrust down their throats in the form proposed in part 3? Were the Government going ahead with part 4, we would cheerfully support them; indeed, we shall do so when we come to part 4. We will try to improve any parts that need it, but we do not object to the principle of part 4, including the referendum.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I clarify one point? The hon. Gentleman talked about a multi-option referendum, including the question of abolition of the Assembly.

Dominic Grieve: indicated dissent.

Elfyn Llwyd: That would not be a matter of Conservative policy.

Dominic Grieve: No, it would not.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful.

Dominic Grieve: I thought I had made it absolutely clear that we were not in favour of multi-option referendums. The Bill does not offer one and we are not trying to amend it to suggest that it should. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Lembit �pik: I am delighted to hear of that transformation on the road to Damascus on the Conservative Front Bench, at least, on the idea of a multi-option referendum in which one option would be the abolition of the Assembly. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Conservatives returned to Parliament from Wales share his view? If not, for my clarification, what has driven that strategic change of heart?

Dominic Grieve: I fear that we may be straying somewhat from the purpose of the lead amendment. The view taken by my party is that, at present, we should concentrate on seeing whether the way in which the Assembly operates can be improved, and that is what we will seek to do in the course of the passage of the Bill. In doing that, we are prepared to consider whether the Assembly should have more powers, although we believe that if it is to have powers, they should be the powers in part 4 and should come into force only if a referendum has taken place beforehanda democratic process with which, I would hope, most hon. Members would find it difficult to disagree.
	We favour the splitting of the executive and legislative roles, because they have not worked. I think that there is general agreement on that point. We have anxieties about some of the other details of the Bill, including the gerrymandering of the electoral system, to which we shall return later, but for present purposes, I enjoin the Committee to concentrate on the issues in part 3.

Wayne David: rose

Dominic Grieve: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope his intervention concerns part 3. If not, this debate might go on for longer than people would wish.

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. If he is in favour of a referendum on whether Orders in Council should be introduced, can he tell the Committee what might be on the ballot paper?

Dominic Grieve: That is a matter that we will come on to debate. The group of amendments before the Committee concerns the mechanism by which further scrutiny of the part 3 process might be achieved. Later, we shall look at other ways in which part 3 might be improved. As I said to the Secretary of State, my experience of a lot of Standing Committee work suggests that it is not unusual to advance different options to the Government and the Committee on how we might proceed. Otherwise, we would fetter our options. It might be that one option commends itself to the Committee more than others, in which case we will go away and think about it. I thought that that was what a Committee stage was about. I despair at the way in which proceedings in Committee are treated as policy utterances, rather than as what they should be, which is a debate on the detail.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman indirectly refers to the next group of amendments on referendums, as well as to the current group on resolutions of both Houses. Am I right in assuming that he is implying that there is a principle behind both groups of amendments but that they manifest it in slightly different ways?

Dominic Grieve: In each case, we want to achieve two things. First, we want it to be clear that the changes are what the people of Wales want. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will move the next group of amendments on the need for a referendum on the part 3 proposals. Those proposals are of as great constitutional significance as the part 4 proposals. In fact, in terms of the practical consequences of removing scrutiny by this House from the life of the people of Wales in certain areas of primary legislation, part 3 is as important as part 4, so it is in our view wrong to deny people a referendum in those circumstances.
	The question is what is the formula that we would offer the people of Wales? That is what the amendments in this group are about. In brief, they envisage that this House, instead of just voting to allow the Assembly to enact legislation in accordance with the framework in a draft Order in Council, would have an opportunity to see the finished product when it came back from the Assembly. The House would then have the opportunity to say yes or no to it.
	At one point earlier, I heard a sedentary intervention that implied that the amendments would provide some appalling obstacle or would be anti-democratic in terms of the Assembly's rights. However, it is worth noting that the Secretary of State already possesses major residual powers under the part 3 procedure to obstruct the passage of legislation. If I am asked whether it is better for the Secretary of State to have the powers to obstruct or for this House to take a decision because it considers that the legislation is unsatisfactory, I think that, in terms of democratic accountability, it is better for this House to make the decision. The further debate of one and a half hours that would take place would be extremely important in highlighting whether Members of the House have any reservations about what the Assembly has done and about the detail on whether there was any great difference between the original instruction or permission that was given to the Assembly and the end product that came back.
	It is worth remembering, for examplethe hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) will be aware of thisthat there are all sorts of mechanisms and procedures by which the Secretary of State can make the Assembly reconsider the detail of its proposals under part 3, so the idea that the Assembly has unfettered discretion under part 3 simply does not reflect the case. What is lost in part 3, as it is drafted, is our ability as Members of Parliament to serve the people of this country properly by carrying out our normal scrutiny role. I am prepared to go along with that, but only if we have the opportunity of looking at the end product as well as the proposal.

John Bercow: By way of underlining the case that my hon. Friend makes, does he recall Second Reading on 9 January and the part of that debate in which the Secretary of State told me that he was preserving his power to intervene in certain cases precisely to protect Parliament? May I put it to my hon. Friend that the mistake that the right hon. Gentleman has made is to regard himself, on the one hand, and Parliament, on the other, as synonymous? Surely if the interests of Parliament are to be protected and we have a choice as to whether the Secretary of State or the House is to do that, most of us would opt for the latter.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There are some worrying aspects of part 3. I have a niggling feeling that it is only the beginning of a process that, one day, we will find foisted on people in England as well. Effectively, this Parliament will shed its responsibility for primary legislation except as a rubber stamp or stop mechanism. It will be said that it is so much better that such legislation is considered at a lower level with a wonderful dialogue taking place between the Executive and Assemblies that can be browbeaten. Scrutiny of such legislation can be dispensed with when, in fact, it has been our meat and drink for many centuries. It is in the detail and in our willingness to address the detail that lies our best ability to serve our constituents and the electorate of this country.
	It is one thing to part, by way of devolution, as we did for Scotland, with a tranche of powers and say, This is what you want and we wash our hands of our responsibility for it, but it is quite another to create a hybrid in which we will end up being criticised for poor governanceand rightly so, because we will have parted with part of our responsibility and thereby failed to discharge other parts of it in any way that is proper.
	I hope that amendment No. 161, which provides for that double scrutiny, commends itself to the Committee. The other amendments in the groupamendments Nos. 171, 178 and 179are consequential and simply amend other clauses, including clause 101, so that they read in a manner that is compatible. That is the intention, but the draftsmen may inform us that they could be improved. If the Government find the principle of what we are saying worth while, I am sure that the draftsmen will be able to put it into proper order.
	Amendment No. 162 is a probing amendment that raises a concern about clause 92(3), which says:
	The validity of an Assembly Measure is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Assembly leading to its enactment.
	I would like an explanation from the Minister as to what that would mean in practice. If the Assembly enacts Assembly Measures in a manner and by procedures that are fundamentally flawed and subsequently overturned by the courtsthat is the likely route that would be takenwhy should those Measures be deemed to have been valid at the time? I am worried about that.
	I understand the need for such a provision when a sovereign body is legislating because it is not answerable to anyone. However, why is such a safeguard being provided to the Assembly, as a subordinate body, because I would not necessarily have expected it to have one? It might mean, for example, that an Assembly Measure could wrongly affect people's private interests and that, subsequent to it being overturned because of the invalidity of the process, there would be no redress for those individuals whatsoever. Is that the proper course of action for the House to adopt? Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me another explanation for why subsection (3) has been included in the Bill. The provision troubles me, so I hope that he will be able to enlighten us on how it is intended that it will work.

Philip Hollobone: Subsection (3) troubles me, too. It is extraordinary that the proceedings of the Assembly could be deemed invalid, yet that the legislation that was passed, which could affect thousands, if not millions, of people, could be deemed valid in the courts. Surely that would undermine the duty of care relating to legislative scrutiny in Wales.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would also undermine the duty of care that we owe to the people of Wales of ensuring that the legislation that they will get through the hybrid system is acceptable. The buck stops with us. Why should we give a blanket exemption to the Assembly if it fails to operate in line with the statutory powers that have been conferred on it, without which it has no power whatsoever?
	There are aspects of the Bill that cause concern because of the extent to which the Assembly will be able to depart from its standing orders. We want to have the necessary reassurance that the Assembly will discharge its functions under the hybrid system in the way in which Parliament intends, but the Bill will allow it to change its standing orders so that it does not scrutinise legislation fully. That is an extraordinary thing to do in part 3. It might be a proper thing to do in part 4 if we are handing over a tranche of responsibilities entirely, but doing that in part 3 is very odd. I hope that the Minister will take the first opportunity to respond to that point.
	I apologise for taking up so much of the Committee's time, but the matter is important and numerous interventions have been made. If part 3 of the Bill were to be acceptable in any way, a situation in which the House did not have control over the final text of legislation to be implemented, even if the detail had been worked out by the Welsh Assembly, would be quite wrong. The amendments are designed to address that situation.

Elfyn Llwyd: I apologise for effectively demoting you to Deputy Chairman earlier, Sir Alan.
	I listened intently to what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said. He is a good debater and an extremely clever man. I share his concerns about the numerous aspects of the Bill that almost give a mandate to the Secretary of State to run Wales from his armchair. However, there are several reasons why I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's solution is right. I believe that there will be sufficient scrutiny, even at stage three, and that more than a sufficient role for Members of Parliament will be built in to the process as the Bill stands.
	I have two great concerns. First, having allowedperhaps that is the wrong word; perhaps I should say permitted, or even seenthe National Assembly to go into considerable detail as part of a process that may last many months, we have that detail brought to us in this House, and in an hour and a half, we are expected to go through all the detail and all the amendments that are necessary. That is not feasible.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly said at the beginning of his speech that we often get legislation wrong in this place. That is partly because we are overworked; we have too much to do. With European legislation and everything that goes on in Committee and so on, it is difficult to catch up with everything that goes through this House. This suggestion would add to that work load.

Dominic Grieve: I should make it clear that I did not envisage an amendable order. If an order came back after the Assembly had had the initial right to do the work and draft the details, the response would be either yes or no, as with any Order in Council. I would not envisage this House second-guessing the Assembly's detailed scrutiny by substituting something of its own. That was not my intention.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point clear, and I fully understand what he says.
	My great concern is partly based on the fact that even in the current position, progress is extremely slow. Progress will be slow under the arrangements in the Bill, too, but it would be slower still if the hon. Gentleman's solution, which may well appear reasonable at first sight, were adopted.
	Let me tell the House about one actual instrument that was recently processed through this place and the National Assembly; the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2005. Here is a brief chronology. The process started on 10 April 2002, when this House implemented legislation to reduce notice periods that must be given by local authorities and the police regarding the removal of abandoned vehicles. Some Members may recall having dealt with the substance of that debate.
	From April 2002 to February 2003, the Welsh Assembly Government lobbied the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support the devolution of the relevant powers on reduction of notice periods and so on. In February 2003 there was a submission to the Minister in Cardiff for permission to seek DEFRA's permission for a transfer of functions order and to consult Welsh stakeholders, which was then done.
	In August, the Minister at DEFRA wrote to his opposite number in Cardiff agreeing to a transfer of functions order when convenient to the House of Commons timetable. That was because a suitable vehicle needed to be programmed into the Westminster process; it is not available on demand. In September it became clear that the abandoned vehicle powers would have to wait for a larger transfer of functions order. In March 2004 the Minister at the Wales Office wrote to the Minister in Cardiff that the powers would have to wait for the transfer of functions order relating to animal health later that year. That was to avoid Parliament being criticised for putting through a separate transfer of functions order.
	In July the National Assembly approved a draft transfer of functions order. In November it was passed by both Houses of Parliament. On 31 December it came into force, and a motion to delegate functions under the transfer of functions order was scheduled for discussion on 18 January 2005. That did not take place, for various operational reasons. Another motion to delegate under the transfer of functions order was rescheduled for 2 February. There were 11 explanatory notes and summary tables, which were e-mailed to Assembly Members at 2.12 on Thursday 27 January, at short notice.
	The story went on until November last year; and this was an uncontentious piece of legislation. Imagine what would have happened if it had been contentious.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has certainly offered us an impressive chronology of the events, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in very high esteem, that he has deployed the tried and tested technique of invoking a worst-case scenario in support of his thesis. Every single week of the parliamentary year there are delegated legislation Committees after delegated legislation Committees considering a plethora of Orders in Council and statutory instruments, contentious and uncontentious, so the hurdle is not quite as great ordinarily as it could be and obviously was in an isolated but unrepresentative case.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have a great deal of regard for the hon. Gentleman, but the point that I was making is that there are other such cases. I was given this one by a colleague in the Assembly and it is probably on the bad sideotherwise I would not use it in my speechbut there are others and I am told that such matters take on average 18 or 20 months. A further procedure as proposed will of course add up to a considerably longer time.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand the temptation to use the worst-case scenario. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that the measure was first anticipated in 2002. As his example shows that the process appears to be taking years rather than months, does he know whether there is any bar to the Welsh Assembly's gathering together the provisions that it wishes to be considered in this House and the Government each year bringing forward a Bill on such matters that they would put through in the normal fashion? To-ing and fro-ing and dilatoriness is a creature of both the Assembly and this House, and therefore one straightforward Bill in every Session for which there would be plenty of time would solve the problem. Can he think of any bar to that procedure? Perhaps it ought to be considered.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady is right, but the bar is the content of the Bill. I know that it accommodates what are rather inelegantly called jumbo orders, but that would not cover the point. A Bill such as she proposes might be difficult, because it might deal with as many as 20 or 30 subjects. However, we should be looking at that, and she makes the point in the right spirit to try to improve matters. Perhaps the Minister could in due course respond to that; perhaps not tomorrow but Monday.

David Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that delay is likely to be inherent in the procedure that is set up by part 3, but is that not a very good argument for dispensing with part 3 altogether? The only reason why we have part 3 is that the Government have latched on to such a byzantine process in order to avoid asking the people of Wales in a referendum whether they want primary legislative powers. If we dispensed with part 3 altogether and went straight to part 4, giving the people of Wales a referendum, we could spare this House a great deal of time.

Elfyn Llwyd: I know that that view is held by the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues in the National Assembly. We are not afraid of a referendum; we are happy for one to come when it has to come under part 4, but I certainly would not favour the hon. Gentleman's proposal. There is a logic to us going through part 3 before part 4. We make no secret of wanting full powers immediately, but that would mean an increased capacity for those who are able to draft legislation, and Assembly Members would need to be up to speed in dealing with the part 3 procedure. Common sense dictates that that is logical. Although I would like things to happen overnight, realistically it will take time for the National Assembly to get up to speed in order to legislate at the rate and with the thoroughness that it would no doubt wish to do so.
	I have listened to the debate and much of what has been said is logical. Unlike the Minister, I do not think that the amendments were intended to be wrecking amendments. They are logical. I simply do not agree with them.

Ian Lucas: I have listened carefully to the debate and I wonder whether the Minister can give me some assurances on procedure and on the role of draft legislation in particular. We have not yet discussed draft legislation in this debate, but it is important that we recognise that progress has been made in the last and present Parliaments in the development of draft legislation and of Joint Committees of the Assembly and the UK Parliament.
	The role of draft legislation in the procedure that is outlined in the Bill is not as clear as I would like. Will the Minister explain whether Members of this House will, at an early stage, consider the orders that are to be produced, so that they are aware of what Measures the Assembly is to propose? It seems to me that one of the essential safeguards needed in the process is that Members of this House have an opportunity at an early stage to make known their views on proposed Assembly Measures. Bearing in mind that the Order in Council procedure does not allow amendments to be made at a late stage, it is extremely important that there be widespread consideration of proposed Assembly Measures by Members of this House.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend has highlighted that point on numerous occasions in the past. Is he suggesting the creation of a Joint Committee consisting of Assembly Members and Members of Parliament so that such debates can take place in one forum or separately in the Assembly and perhaps another forum of this House?

Ian Lucas: I think that a Joint Committee approach has worked extremely well in the past, because it promotes a positive atmosphere of Assembly Members and Members of Parliament working together. I hope that that will develop as the process in the Bill develops.
	The position of the official Opposition confuses me. In recent years in this Parliament, legislation appropriate to Wales or directed at Wales alone has been drafted in the form of enabling legislation and has been passed either in a separate Bill or as a Wales-only section of a larger Bill. It seems to me that there has been little difficulty with those proposals being considered by Joint Committees, being drafted in the broadest terms in primary legislation and passed in those terms by this Parliament, and the Assembly implementing the proposals at a later stage, after its process has been gone through. It has not been necessary after the Assembly has gone through its process to bring legislation back to this place for a vote, as the official Opposition are suggesting should happen, and it would be unnecessary after the Bill was passed if Members of Parliament were closely involved at an early stage of the process.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may know my views. I am not sure how many Orders in Council there were, but in 1966 there were 35 statutory instruments passed as subordinate legislation; only a tiny handful. Now, we constantly pass legislation that gives wide discretion to Secretaries of State to enact secondary legislation, which the House has grossly insufficient opportunity to scrutinise adequately. That is a constitutional reform that I would very much like to see.
	However, it remains the case that the House has a responsibility for primary legislation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that what the Government are doing in the Bill is turning what is normally primary legislation into secondary legislation, so issues of even greater importance will not be properly scrutinised here, on the promise that they may get better scrutiny elsewhere, but without our having any opportunity to see the final product and pronounce on it.

Ian Lucas: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it takes us to the heart of the Conservative position. What he has ignored throughout all his comments so far in the debate is that the National Assembly for Wales is a democratically elected institution. The point of devolution was to introduce a more democratic element to the process of dealing with the huge number of distinct regulations that the Secretary of State for Wales dealt with in the past. The central weakness of the Conservative position is that it does not recognise that the Assembly has any democratic validity at all.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right; the National Assembly is a democratically constituted institution. But does he agree that it is constituted on the basis of a referendum that was held in 1997, in which the powers of the proposed Assembly were carefully defined? Does he agree also that the explanatory material that preceded that referendum made it clear that the powers to be devolved were secondary legislative powers, and that what is being proposed in part 3 is the piecemeal conference of primary powers on a step by step basis? That is quite different from what the people of Wales voted for in 1997.

Ian Lucas: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not regard the measure as the introduction of primary legislative powers by the back door. I do not support primary legislative powers for the Assembly. There has been an incremental process since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales; for example, the introduction of Joint Committees, to which I referred. The Opposition did not at that stage call for a referendum. With respect to them, it is not possible for us to call for a referendum at each stage when procedures change. The correct time for a referendum to take place is when primary legislative powers are passed, if ever, to the Assembly. The present position is that the ultimate decisions will remain in this place. As long as that remains so, there is no need for a referendum.

David Davies: First, the hon. Gentleman says there is no need for a referendum until primary legislative powers are given to the Assembly, but surely the point of the Bill is that primary legislative powers will be given to the Assembly, albeit in a slightly restricted fashion. Secondly, the point behind what he is saying is surely that there should be a referendum if significant extra powers are going to the Assembly. The Secretary of State for Wales and his colleague have already said that this is a significant Bill. Thirdly, the scrutiny process that can take place in the Assembly necessarily will be far more restricted because there are at most only 60 people whose input can go into that scrutiny, whereas in the House and the other place, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are more than 1,000 people.

Ian Lucas: The point about scrutiny is a valid one. That is the reason that I am so strongly in favour of Joint Committees of this place and the Assembly. That is a way of dealing with the relatively low number of Members in the Assembly. This is why I asked for some assurance from the Front Bench about the continued role of Members of Parliament in this regard.
	To return to the issue of a referendum, this place will continue to have a role to play in legislation that is passed for Wales, but if there were a proposal to take away that role, there would need to be a referendum. However, the process that exists here means that I will continue to have a role as a Member of Parliament in proposals that are outside the Assembly's present legislative competence, and I am content that no referendum will be required as long as that role remains.
	I would like more reassurance on the early stages of the procedure that is to be introduced, but the Conservative party needs to wake up to the fact that there has been incremental improvement of the process through the development of the Joint Committees and the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee. That process has already happened; we did not need a referendum for it to begin, and we do not need one now.

Lembit �pik: Sir Nicholas, what a delight it is to see you in the Chair. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate.
	We seem to have debated this group of amendments and the next one by proxy, in that this group does not really deal with referendums. We shall come to the next group shortly, so I shall limit my comments to amendment No. 161 and the associated amendments. There seems to be a contradiction between what the leader of the Conservatives has said and what the amendments seek to do. Both positions are legitimate but they do not fit together. I have a strong sense that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has expressed his support for devolution, yet this group of amendments seems to roll back the latitude that the Welsh Assembly has in regard even to its existing powers. The two positions do not fit together. If I have misunderstood the import of the amendments, I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will intervene on me to clarify the matter.

Dominic Grieve: The amendments have absolutely no bearing on the present powers of the Assembly, which involve the right to enact statutory instruments in the same manner as the Secretary of State previously had the power to do by virtue of legislation enacted by this House. That is its remit

Nick Ainger: Framework powers.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. The amendments propose to extend that provision so that measures that currently require primary legislation here would be dealt with by virtue of an Order in Council's sleight of hand and be converted into secondary legislation, so that the Assembly could also deal with them. Previously, it would have been unable to consider them because they required primary legislative consideration here. I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments have no bearing on the Assembly's present powers. I have to say that I am slightly troubled if he cannot see the distinction between primary and secondary legislation, because that is precisely the piece of wool that the Government are trying to pull over everyone's eyes.

Lembit �pik: I have been wearing that particular woolly hat for about nine years, because I was here when we created the original legislation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. I understand that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has perhaps not been involved in Welsh stuff for quite as long as some of us, and I also accept that I might be wrong, but my understanding is that, as an unintended consequence, the amendments would impact on what the Assembly is already able to do. As I have said, however, I could be wrong about that.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman has a point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said earlier, enabling powers are in widespread use at the moment, whereby the National Assembly for Wales is given permissive authority to draft specific clauses in primary legislation. The official Opposition's proposals would clearly undermine the spirit of that arrangement, if nothing else.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because the amendments seem to have missed something. As he rightly says, if the amendments are passed, the Assembly will no longer be able to do certain aspects of its work in the same way. If we were debating solely amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 177 to 179, the Assembly would, if those amendments were passed, feel the pinch in terms of its current powers. That might not have been the intention, but I am pretty sure that it is the outcome.

David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative amendments relate only to Assembly Measures, which are not passed by the Assembly at the moment? How can the amendments therefore affect the Assembly's current workings in any way?

Lembit �pik: The Assembly's current workings are affected because of the amendments' unintended consequence in terms of existing legislative procedures. I do not want to speculate about that, because I am sure that the Minister will have had a more detailed analysis from his advisers, which will give a definitive answer.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I will do so briefly, but I will probably not respond to the hon. Lady's intervention.

Cheryl Gillan: I am merely trying to be helpful. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that our amendments to the first clause in part 3on Assembly Measures, which do not exist at the momentwill affect the Assembly's current legislative position. Will he give examples of the unintended consequences to which he has referred? We should have a list of those, because it was neither my intention nor that of my hon. Friends who tabled the amendments to do other than to probe this matter and get clarification. The discussion of the amendments leads me to believe, however, that the longer the hon. Gentleman goes on, the more likely we are to put them to a vote.

Lembit �pik: I have been inspired to raise such points only by the exhortation from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that we should have a proper debate. It is useful that we are having such a debate, as we cannot both be right. I do not have a profound insight, as I do not read his amendments in great detail at night, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) does, so I shall give way to him to clarify the situation definitively.

Roger Williams: As my hon. Friend might have realised, much of the primary legislation passed in this place enables the Assembly to carry on its work and achieve its objectives without further reference back to this place. The Conservative amendments, however, seem to me to put a hurdle or even an obstacle in the way of the Assembly carrying out its purposes.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I feel that we are the warm-up act for the political giant to follow, who will give the definitive answer to the question.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Lembit �pik: I will give way once more.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a point on which I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. The amendments could only have the unintended consequences that he states if, as a result of the passage of the Bill, the previous mechanism governing the Assembly's action disappeared, so that everything had to be an Assembly Measure. The Minister might tell me that that is how the Government have done it. If so, the House needs to debate that, because an Assembly Measure is different from the Assembly's previous powers. If that is one of the consequences of part 3, I find it slightly surprising that it was not highlighted by the Minister on Second Reading, because it would not only enhance the Assembly's existing powers but change them radically so that the Assembly could do something that it could not do previously.

Lembit �pik: I think I can say on behalf of all Members that we are in for a treat when the Minister clarifies the issue. I do not think that I have anything to add. The Minister has heard the question, which now hangs poised above him as we await his answer.
	There is another point, probably less controversial in terms of interpretation, but nevertheless controversial in terms of judgment. Notwithstanding the debate in which we have just engaged, the aim of the Conservative amendments is evidently to rein in the Assembly's latitude to operate autonomously, because they introduce the necessary involvement of both Houses of Parliament to affirm matters that, as the Bill stands, would not require the affirmation of either House. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) observed, that is a legitimate position, but my position is different. The amendments go even less far than a Bill that I feel does not go far enough, and it therefore goes without saying that we cannot support them.
	It is not clear to me why the Conservatives seem to be both very pro-devolution and very much against giving the Assembly its head. I think it was the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) who pointed out that the Assembly is democratically elected by the people of Wales.

Betty Williams: May I offer a simple explanation for the amendments? Could it be that none of the four Members who tabled them has represented a Welsh constituency since devolution or, indeed, sat on the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has worked hard and closely with the Assembly, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)?

Lembit �pik: I will not go down that path. I do not question the intellect or the parliamentary capabilities of three Conservative Front Benchers with a collective IQ of at least 600which is doubled if we include the acting duty Whip, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).
	That issue does not concern me. The issue that concerns me is an issue of judgment. Surely if we are truly committed to devolution we must, at the very least, oppose the amendments. The Liberal Democrats think that the Bill as it stands is timid, but the amendments take it backwards.
	I will now sit down, and give way to the main attraction.

Nicholas Winterton: I call Mr. Paul Murphy. [Laughter.]

Paul Murphy: I am the second main attraction.
	Issues relating to scrutiny may also be discussed later, particularly when we debate clause 97, but I was prompted to speak at this stage by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made an interesting speech, although I do not agree with the requirement for resolutions. I think that we achieved a balance when providing for Orders in Council. Another possibility would have been primary legislation every time the Assembly wished to deal with an issue. That would have been entirely impracticable.
	The hon. Gentleman made some interesting points about scrutiny of the Orders in Council, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. It was pointed out that in Northern Ireland, in the absence of a functioning elected Assembly, direct rule must rely on Orders in Council. As everyone knows, Orders in Council are unamendable, and the time taken for consideration is very short. In Northern Ireland the problem has been partly overcome through a decent system of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I think that that is what should happen in this instance.
	Having read the notes on clauses and the various other documents that we are obliged to read in connection with the Bill, I am not entirely convinced that we have arrived at the right answer yet.
	The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs recommended in its report on these issues that
	Standing Orders be amended to disapply Standing Order No.118 in respect of draft Orders in Council made under the proposed new Act.
	It went on to talk about the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. The reply from the Government was effectively that it was a matter for the business managers. I am not convinced that it is. Obviously, business managers have an important role to play but the House has a right to look at how properly to scrutinise the legislation. There is a case for both the Assembly and Parliament meeting together in a Committee structure to look at that. There is a case for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to play a role in such legislation. In particular, there is a case seriously to question whether one and a half hours' debate on Orders in Council is adequate. I am sure that it would be possible to extend that debate to three hours. I am sure that debates could be held on the Floor of the House if the issue were of such gravity, and that we can look at the role of the Welsh Grand Committee in these matters. That may be another way out.
	In all the documentation surrounding this part of the Bill, little is said about the parliamentary scrutiny of the Orders in Council, but plenty is said about the role of Government, whether it is in Cardiff or in London. Such comment is right, but then it stops. The arrangements for the Assembly Government, or the Executive as it is likely to be called, and the British Government in terms of working out what happens with the Orders in Council are well defined in the Bill. Checks and balances exist, but there is a gap as far as this place is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister would do well to return to the issue with colleagues, whether it be the Leader of the House or whoever, to consider again whether to establish formally in writingin Standing Orders, in legislation or wherevera system by which pre-legislative scrutiny is defined more closely and adequately, and Orders in Council themselves are not limited to one and a half hours' debate upstairs in a Committee. That is not good enough for the issues that we are dealing with.
	As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, these are gravely important issues. This is a new form of procedure and arrangement for the House of Commons, so there is nothing to stop us having a new form of scrutiny. I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister, but these are important issues and I am sure that many Labour Members agree with my argument.

Julie Morgan: I want to make a brief contribution. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) says that part 3 gives primary legislation to the Welsh Assembly by the back door. That is the basis of his argument, which is a huge exaggeration. The proposals in the Bill are relatively modest. I would support primary legislative powers and campaign for them, but only if there were a referendum. I do not believe that the proposed measures introduce primary legislative powers.
	Part 3 clearly preserves the right of Parliament to oversee legislation in Wales in principle. It is clearly laid down that that right will be debated in Parliament and that the Assembly will not be able to go ahead with anything unless it is debated here. If the hon. Gentleman's proposals were adopted, it would make the whole process much more cumbersome and difficult. It would be a step backwards. As a result, a proposal that I support strongly, albeit a small step forward, would be held back.

David Jones: Does the hon. Lady agree that, once legislative competence has been devolved by adding a matter to one of the fields listed in schedule 5, the Assembly can continue to make Assembly Measures ad infinitum, without any input from this House? Once legislative competence is devolved, it is devolved for good, and this House will have no input in the process.

Julie Morgan: As has been noted, devolution exists already. The Assembly is democratically elected, and we must trust its ability to carry out legislative functions. The Opposition are making a great mistake in attempting to hang on to power in Westminster in a way that will not allow the Assembly to develop.
	There will be difficulties when it comes to scrutiny, as the Assembly has only 60 Members, and it must take that problem on board and deal with it. However, I strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and others about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny and of working together through the Welsh Affairs Committee. When I was a member of that Committee, we worked with the Assembly to carry out joint scrutiny of quite a few Bills. That extremely effective way of working can be built into this process.
	In conclusion, the amendments would create another obstacle to giving the Assembly more power over what it does. I hope that they will be resisted.

Nick Ainger: Before I respond to the debate, I want to point out that the amendments, and the contribution by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), take us back to the fundamental question of devolution. The Opposition are reluctant to accept that the democratically elected Assembly in Cardiff does have powers to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Executive to account. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has said that the Tories have moved to a pro-devolution position, but the amendments seem to cut across that.
	The enhanced legislative powers that part 3 would enable to be conferred on the Assembly are an adaptation of the current settlement. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and control the powers that it devolves to the Assembly on a case-by-case basis. It will then be for the Assembly to scrutinise how those powers are used to make Assembly Measures that address the needs of Wales.

Dominic Grieve: In the 1997 referendum, the people of Wales voted by a small majority for devolution powers that were clearly explained. Those powers were subsequently legislated on, and I took part at some length in the debate in this House about the transfer to the Assembly of the Secretary of State's function to make statutory instruments. The Minister seems to want to fudge the issue, so does he agree that the Bill, by means of the mechanism in part 3, transfers further powers to the Assembly? If part 3 is enacted, therefore, the Assembly will be able to do things that it could not do previously. Can we get that established at the outset, so that we can see the parameters of the debate?

Nick Ainger: Very simply, the answer is yes, because giving the Assembly enhanced legislative powers was a manifesto commitment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman had to ask that question, given the purpose of the Bill and everything that we have said about it, including in the White Paper.
	The Bill is designed to give the Assembly enhanced legislative powers, but the amendments show that the Tories still have no faith in the Assembly's ability to scrutinise its own legislation. If that is not so, why does Amendment No. 161 enable Parliament to examine an Assembly Measure not only at the beginning of the process but at the end, and to say yes or no to it? That is not accepting devolution.

David Davies: As one of the more sceptical Assembly Members, I can assure the Minister that we do not think that the Assembly would fail to do the job of scrutinising; it would do as good a job as it possibly could. My point isto some extent, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) agreed with thisthat 60 people, even with the help of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and of Joint Committees, are not going to be able to do as good a job as the 1,000-plus who sit in this House and in the other place.

Nick Ainger: That is an interesting point, but once the hon. Gentleman has been here a little longer and been through the Whips Office, he will perhaps realise how many people are actually actively involved in scrutinising legislation. It is interesting to count the number of Members who participate in the scrutiny even of controversial Bills on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. The Assembly currently sits for only two or three days a week, and as the First Minister and its Presiding Officer have said, it will have to sit full time. Its doing so will address a lot of the practical problems associated with 60 AMs scrutinising legislation.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that these amendments would not affect current processes, but frankly they attempt to turn the clock back. Schedule 11 allows for framework powers that can be given to the Assembly through primary legislation to be converted into Orders in Council or into Assembly Measures. If his amendment were accepted, legislation that the Assembly had been given the power to develop by primary legislation passed in this House would have to come back to this place for further approval. That is nonsensical. We are trying to give the Assembly enhanced powers, but if his amendment were accepted, the Assembly would have to come back here for approval of such legislation, yet secondary legislation undertaken by the Assembly would not be affected. That, too, is nonsensical.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister will surely see some logic in our proposal. The giving of enhanced powers to do things that previously were not possible is a very good reason for asking that such legislation be sent back for approval. However, we are content that the ordinary powers provided for under statutory instrument should not be sent back. That is a perfectly basic and sensible point, and if I have misunderstood the Minister he will doubtless explain himself.

Nick Ainger: That is not giving enhanced legislative powersit is keeping a very tight grip on such powers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the White Paper, and I remind him that the Bill's purpose is to give enhanced legislative powers to the Assembly.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Nick Ainger: I will give way again, but in response I shall simply repeat what I said before.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Ministersuch to-ing and fro-ing can be helpful. He clearly did not listen fully to what I said. I pointed out at the outset that if the Government want to give the Assembly primary legislative functions, we will support part 4, subject to a referendum. Instead, however, they propose to give the Assembly the ability, through Order in Council, to enact Assembly Measures that currently require primary legislation passed first in this House. That is where we have a disagreement. If the Minister wishes to proceed down that route, my view, without the part 4 procedure, would be that although I might be prepared to let the detail be worked out by the Assembly, I should still wish the Measure to come back to be validated by the House before it could be enacted.
	We have a disagreement, but to say that I am not prepared to give enhanced powers to the Assembly is to traduce my words. No logical analysis could lead the Minister to that conclusion, leaving just a desire, I am afraid, to make propaganda, which slightly irritates me.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I make a plea for slightly shorter interventions. From the Chair, they appear to be becoming short speeches. I appeal to hon. Members to try to make interventions shorter.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield still refuses to accept that the enhanced powers we are talking about mean giving further responsibility. It would be wrong if, having given the Assembly the responsibility to develop the detail of a Measure, it then has to come back to this place for us to say yea or nay to that detail. That is not devolution; that is not giving powers to the Assemblythat is holding power even tighter than we hold it now.

Elfyn Llwyd: I touched on that point earlier, and the Minister is absolutely right. The flaw in the argument of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is that if, as we should, we allow the Assembly to deal with all the detail, when the Measure comes back here we will not have all the detail to go through. Nor have we the time to go through all the detail. If, rightly, we have left the Assembly to deal with the detail, we are merely the machinery by which the Assembly makes that detail law.

Nick Ainger: Exactly. In effect, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is saying to me now, all we could do would be to hold a veto. That is certainly not in line with our devolution position, but I thought that it was also the new devolution position of the Conservatives.
	I come now to the contributions made by hon. Members. I say with the greatest of respect that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield misconceives what the Orders in Council do. They do not change the law, they merely give permission to the Assembly to develop, through the Assembly Measures method, its own law. He said that the Orders in Council changed the lawthey do not; they merely give the Assembly permission to carry out those functions.

Dominic Grieve: rose

Nick Ainger: I will give way again, hopefully to a brief intervention.

Dominic Grieve: I shall seek to be as brief as possible. In the schedule that lays out the powers we are transferringschedule 5, I thinkit is quite clear that we are substantially giving primary law-making powers to the Assembly. It may be called an Order in Council, but the Assembly Measure is a primary law-making power that we are, without referendum, shedding to the Assembly, and disguising by calling it an Order in Council.
	If the Minister wants to persuade me that I am wrong about that, I shall listen, but I shall take a lot of convincing. He is simply dressing up a primary legislative function as something else and saying that we need not worry about it because it is not a primary legislative function, when it plainly is.

Nick Ainger: The point that the hon. Gentleman does not seem able to accept is that Parliament will decide case by case the areas in which the Assembly can legislate. If Parliament decides that it does not want to give the Assembly powers to legislate in a clearly defined area, Parliament will not do that. We have to accept that the Order in Council will not change the law: it will be the Assembly Measure that will change the law.

David Jones: The Minister has conceded that what is being handed over to the Assembly, on a case-by-case basisas he puts itis primary legislative competence. That being the case, can he tell the Committee why he does not have enough faith in the people of Wales to put these proposals before them in a referendum? I suggest that the answer is simple, and it is because he knowsas the Secretary of State has concededthat the Government would lose such a referendum.

Nick Ainger: Well, we have a mandate for this

David Jones: indicated dissent.

Nick Ainger: I am afraid that we do have a mandate. We made it clear in both the UK Labour manifesto and in the manifesto for Wales that we would give enhanced legislative powers to the National Assembly. The hon. Gentleman argues that we are giving primary powers by the back door, but if so, we are doing so very openly because Parliament will decide whether to give the Assembly those powers on each issue. It is not the carte blanche provided for in part 4which will give the Assembly total discretion in the areas for which it has Executive responsibilityto bring in legislation. That is completely different from part 3.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of the Opposition's position is that even if we passed primary legislation to give the Assembly powers, as we did in the case of the fire authorities, for example, we would need to have a referendum to enable us to do so?

Nick Ainger: That is the logical conclusion.
	I have another example. In section 62 of the Education Act 2005, the Assembly was given framework powers over education inspection. I have checked the Hansard for the Committee stage of that Bill and there was not a peep from the Opposition. A power was given to the Assembly to carry out its own policy programme and develop its own regulations onthe inspection of schools and educational establishments in Wales, and it went straight through on the nod.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman think, therefore, that we were being supportive of the proposition that such a power should go to the Assembly and, therefore, supportive of the Assembly having those powers at that time?

Nick Ainger: I have listened to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but the hon. Lady does not appear to have done so. Powers were given straight to the Assembly to develop their own policies and legislation, and the Opposition accepted that. However, in this case, with powers to be given through the Assembly Measure and Order-in-Council process, they say that there should be a referendum. In 18 years in power, the Conservatives held not a single referendum. How serious are they on this issue?

Dominic Grieve: If the logic of the Minister's argument is correct, there is no need for the legislation. If the Minister were correct, it would be possible, under the existing arrangements, for the Assembly to do what he wants it to be able to do. The Minister knows that that is not the case, so perhaps he would concentrate on why it is that the Government have had to latch on to the mechanism of the Order in Council to provide the enhanced functions. That might then help him to understand why part 3 represents a major shedding of power by this House, without referendum, to the Welsh Assembly, under the tutelage of the Secretary of State in its implementation. As a democrat and because I was elected to this House to represent people, that is what I object to.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the White Paper. The main thrust behind the introduction of the part 3 powers is the delays and logjam that occur with the parliamentary process here. If the Assembly is to be totally dependent on primary legislation being passed here and then given framework powers for secondary legislation, it will have to wait a long time. It may be that there will be occasions when legislation will give the Assembly framework powers that it can convert into Assembly Measures, and I have quoted the Education Act 2005. However, the point of part 3 is to address the issue that was highlighted in the Richard report about the parliamentary legislative logjam that exists here. It prevents the Assembly from getting through the pieces of legislation that it wants.
	I think that I have dealt with virtually all the points raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Clearly, I have not convinced him, but I did not expect to do so. However, I shall now turn to some of the points about draft legislation and scrutiny that were raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I notice that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) is no longer in his place.My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) touched on the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny in this process. The problem that we face is that the Bill cannot fetter the procedures of the House. We cannot dictate to the House the procedures for pre-legislative scrutiny. I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee has done an excellent job in considering pieces of primary legislation and has changed them.
	It is important for all Members to understand the process that will be involved. We envisage that, with the agreement of the House and the Select Committee, a preliminary draft order will be produced by the Assembly after it has been through whatever processes it wants to go through, and that may include considering a report produced by one of its Committees. The Secretary of State would then ask the House and, in particular, the Select Committee to scrutinise that draft legislation or Order in Council.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend has seen the two documents that I have made available to the House, the first of which was a draft document relating to the Bill for a public services ombudsman. Instead of being a piece of primary legislation, the document shows how it would have followed the Order in Council and Welsh Assembly Measure system. The second relates to the Transport (Wales) Bill, which is completing its stages through the House. That would also have gone through the Order in Council process. Both documents clearly show the opportunities that exist for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Alan Williams: May I reassure the Minister that the Liaison Committee and its member Committees are constantly asking for more draft Bills? If the Wales Office produces them, I assure it that they will be considered. However, that does not avoid the fact that after such Bills have been looked at, discussed in depth and amendments to them recommended, it is not the House that will decide whether the amendments will be acceptedit will be the Secretary of State.

Nick Ainger: That is not necessarily so.

Alan Williams: rose

Nick Ainger: Let me describe the process, and perhaps that will help my right hon. Friend.
	Once the pre-legislative scrutiny has been undertaken, any suggested changes would return to the Assembly in a report produced by the Welsh Affairs Committee, or jointly by an Assembly Committee. In fact, the Assembly Committee may separately be considering the same proposal. It would then be for the Assembly possibly to reconsider the form of the draft Order in Council, taking into account the pre-legislative scrutiny. The order would then return to the Secretary of State, who would lay it before the House, and it would be debated. If members of the Welsh Affairs Committee or anybody else who had been involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny felt that their reasonable comments and suggested amendments had not been taken on board, it is possible that they could persuade their colleagues in the House that the order should not go through.

Alan Williams: We would have to do that in the limited time of one and a half hours allowed to debate the order placed before the House. Virtually no one would be able to take part.

Nick Ainger: That is why it is so important that we have the pre-legislative scrutiny.
	I respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen by pointing out that these are important issues and we recognise the importance of getting them right. We will look at them and see whether there is any way to ensure that the Orders in Council receive full pre-legislative scrutiny and that there is no questioneither now or in the futurethat that could be circumvented in any way. I can give him that assurance.

Cheryl Gillan: How does the Minister see clause 94(7)(b) and subsection (8) fitting into the process? It appears that the Secretary of State can just say no and give a few reasons for saying no. The First Minister then just has to announce that to the Assembly. How does that fit in with what the Minister said in reply to the first intervention from the Father of the House? There appears to be an incongruity here.

Nick Ainger: Knowing my right hon. Friend's position, I think that he would be more than happy if the Secretary of State used the powers in clause 94. However, the Secretary of State will have to put in writing his reasons for refusal to lay an order, and if those reasons are unreasonable they will clearly be subject to judicial review. I think that that responds to that point.

Ian Lucas: I am most grateful for the reassurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. However, my concern is that there has been no reference whatever to a draft order being placed before Parliament before the Assembly considers it. Would it be possible for the legislation to provide for draft orders to be placed before this House as well as before the Assembly?

Nick Ainger: I do not wish to confuse my hon. Friend, but we need to be clear about what we are calling draft orders. Preliminary draft ordersthe first draft, in effectwould undergo pre-legislative scrutiny in the same way as draft Bills, such as the Transport (Wales) Bill. We would have to keep calling the Measure a draft Order in Council until it was agreed to and thus became an Order in Council. I assure my hon. Friend that the preliminary drafts will come before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny every time.

Dai Havard: My hon. Friend explained that there would be an iterative process through which we would end up with an Order in Council before Parliament. At that point, we would presumably discuss it as parliamentarians, so would there be a whipped vote or a free vote?

Nick Ainger: I speak as a former member of the Whips Office. The Secretary of State would be laying a Government order, so I would expect my hon. Friends to follow the Secretary of State's suggestion of supporting it.
	We have had a long exchange on the detail of amendment No. 161. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised several points when he spoke to amendment No. 162, so it is worth putting our thinking on record. Amendment No. 162 would remove the protection afforded to an Assembly Measure against legal challenge on the ground of a procedural invalidity in the proceedings of the Assembly that led to its enactment. The Bill provides for the legal separation of the Assembly Government from the Assembly, as is the case here, in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Scottish Parliament.
	The Assembly should not be impeded in its primary function of making legislation by legal challenges, some of which could be wholly spurious and based on a technical invalidity during proceedings. In respect of Parliament, that principle is enshrined in article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which provides that freedom of speech, debates and proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. It is also reflected in respect of the Scottish Parliament in section 28(5) of the Scotland Act 1998, and in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly in section 5(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Clause 92(3) and the equivalent Measure in clause 106(3), which relates to Acts of the Assembly, will put the Assembly on the same footing as Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

John Gummer: If the principle is as obvious as the Minister suggests, why was it not thought necessary when the original Government of Wales Act 1998 was passed? If such a provision is now thought necessary, what has changed? Why was it originally thought that the position should be different from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but now thought obvious that the situation should be the same?

Nick Ainger: Because the Bill gives the Assembly the right to enact Assembly Measures. That is the difference between where we were at the time of the 1998 Act and where we are today.

John Gummer: Will the Minister thus tell me what I should say to my constituents who are not protected in such a way and have no such opportunity to deal with English matters with the same clarity that he is allowing for the Welsh?

Nick Ainger: That is a slur on not only the right hon. Gentleman, but all English Members of Parliament. Of course they have exactly the same powers and defences regarding legislation. Now that we are giving the Welsh Assembly the power to make Assembly Measures, it requires the same protection as Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
	We have had a good run around all the issues. Obviously, we are still trying to persuade the new Conservative partyif I may call it that, given its position on devolutionto accept that they have to let go a bit. I hate to use this term, but perhaps it is still a little anally retentive. It is time to move forward and realise that the enhanced legislative powers will be good for the Assembly and for Wales, and certainly do not require a referendum.

Dominic Grieve: I hope that my participation in the previous Government of Wales Bill and, indeed, the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, has made me pragmatic about the constitution of our country. Our constitution is, of course, unwritten, and it has great flexibility. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made the point that constitutions evolve, which I acknowledge. I accept the Minister's argument that the separation of primary and secondary legislation has a certain flexibility. In recent years, we have seen ample signs that the Executive have taken to addressing matters through secondary legislation that the House would have thought of as requiring primary legislation in the past. I also acknowledge that, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen said on Second Reading, the important aspect of scrutiny is its effect on the delivery of good governance and legislation to recipients. I thus hope that it is not the case that sacred notions of parliamentary propriety or historical ways of conducting business are simply embedded in my mind. I learned that when we considered both Bills in 1998, which I enjoyed participating in very much.
	The Minister's answers to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about amendment No. 162 were telling. The reason why the protection that we have under the Bill of Rights was not given to the Welsh Assembly in 1998 was because it was considered that it was being set up not as a parliamentary body, but as a local government body. At the time at which we debated the matter, I highlighted my worry that, whereas the solution that we had adopted for Scotland was quite neatone might have disagreed with it, but shedding a whole raft of areas of parliamentary responsibility to the Scottish Parliament had a neatness about itthe solution for Wales was fraught with problems because of the difficulty of separating primary and secondary legislative functions. That is embedded in my mind from all those years ago.
	Today's debate has highlighted the problem. Despite all the explanations that the Minister offered, we cannot escape the fact that the reason why the Government thought it necessary to give immunity to the Welsh Assembly was precisely because they intended to transfer primary legislative functions to it under part 3. I enjoy debating with the Ministeror any other hon. Member, for that matterbut when we are discussing constitutional measures, it is important that, while arguing our cases, we are honest with the electorate about what we are doing. The Government's tendency to say that changes do not really matter because they are minor incremental moves, or gentle tweaks to the system about which we should not worry, is quite wrong. Even by the standards of the present blurred distinctions between primary and secondary legislation, the Government are presenting a fundamental, major constitutional change.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it then becomes increasingly difficult to explain to English constituents the fact that some parts of the United Kingdom have powers from which other parts are excluded, yet the representatives of those parts in this House still play their part in making decisions on the future of English constituencies?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right. That is a serious issue, which is likely to continue to grow. Indeed, it has become more serious in the past eight years since devolution and it will continue to be a subject of debate.
	For the purposes of this debate, I shall concentrate on the impact of these measures on the people of Wales, for whom we have a major responsibility, and we will continue to have that responsibility even after part 3 is enacted. If part 4 were ever enacted, however, our responsibility would shift considerably.

Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the passage of the part 3 measures should mean that I, as a Member of Parliament from Wales, should have my power to participate in proceedings in this House reduced? Should part 3 mean that my votes here will count for less?

Dominic Grieve: I shall avoid having a major constitutional debate with the hon. Gentleman, although that is a relevant and important topic. If part 4 were ever enacted, the argument about reducing the role of Welsh Members would become similar to that for reducing the role of Scottish Members. The same applies to a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs.
	From the Government's point of view, the nice thing about part 3 is that it blurs all that and provides a mechanism by which Parliament sheds its law-making powers to a mixture of the Secretary of State and the Assembly, but in a way that preserves the notion that Parliament remains in complete control of Welsh matters.
	I shall now bring my remarks to a close, because that is precisely why I tabled amendment No. 161 in the first place. Its merit is that it would ensure that Parliament scrutinised the end product of an Assembly Measure before it was enacted. If I may say so to the Minister, that reflects exactly the constitutional position for which he is trying to argue.
	I found the Minister's arguments about my proposal being a kick in the face for the Assembly odd. Under part 3, the Assembly's powers would be enhanced. We gradually drew that out from the Minister. It took time to succeed, but finally we got an acknowledgment that these powers are different from the pre-existing powers. A final ratification procedure therefore seems to me fairly reasonable.
	The Minister argued that that would interfere grossly with the way in which the Assembly carries out its functions and delay things. I find that an odd argument. What on earth is wrong with a one and a half hour debate in this House to enable the House to satisfy itself that the Assembly has operated in compliance with the remit originally given to it, and that the Measure does not offend constitutional propriety or cause difficulties? All those are powers that we are to give to the Secretary of State, but apparently we do not want to keep them for ourselves.
	The longer this debate has gone on, the more convinced I have become that my decision to table the amendment was correct. I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who suggested that we would be taking back something from the old devolution settlement of 1998, but he will have heard what the Minister said, and I do not think that we are doing that. Even if there is an area of interface between the twoI fully acknowledge that constitutional issues can be blurred at the edgesI genuinely think that this is an improvement in the system.
	After all, the Bill is about all sorts of ways of improving that system. I do not think that my proposal would diminish the Assembly's ability to do the detail, and it certainly would not reduce or interfere with the power that the Government propose to give the Assembly to do the detail, or with its existing powers to implement what was previously the Secretary of State's remit. My amendment would provide a way by which the House could continue to be involved.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about the scrutiny issues. I am not sure what all the solutions are. I am open-minded on that subject. On its own, the proposal before us would not be a substitute for the pre-legislative scrutiny. These things have to go hand in hand, but to suggest that the idea behind amendment No. 161 is an insult to the Assembly or the people of Wales is far off the mark.

Lembit �pik: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to institute a system that would give the Assembly the latitude to make the tactical decisions within subject areas, but that he would like to maintain the strategic decision making in this Parliament, here in London. That is a legitimate position to hold, but he will understand that I have a different view, because I think it right to devolve the strategic decisions as well. Nevertheless, I understand his position, even if there is a genuine difference of view.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to go over the point again, but if we want to devolve strategic decision making to the Assembly, part 4 would do exactly that. One may disagree about whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but part 4 has an internal coherence that part 3 does not possess.
	Part 3 is about a troikaone individual and two institutions. There is the Secretary of State with his Executive functions, the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament. It is for us to bring about a system that, if this is what the House wants, will enable us to give the necessary powers to the Assembly to deal with the detail while stillthis is what the Government say that they want to achieveleaving us with residual responsibility. What could be a better expression of that residual responsibility than our voting, after a one and a half hour debate, on the ratification of the Assembly Measure when it comes back to us?
	The alternative is to tolerate a situation in which we give a power, yet once we have lost it, problems can arise, and the criticism can come back to us. I have great reservations about part 3, but if it is to be made to work, the amendment would be an improvement, so I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 50, line 9, at end insert
	'(2A)   No Assembly Measure may be introduced unless a majority of voters in a referendum vote in favour of Assembly Measure provisions coming into force.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6Referendum about commencement of Assembly Measure provisions
	'(1)   Her Majesty may by Order in Council cause a referendum to be held throughout Wales about whether the Assembly Measure provisions should come into force.
	(2)   If the majority of voters in a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, the Assembly Measure provisions are to come into force in accordance with section 92.
	(3)   But if they do not, that does not prevent the making of a subsequent Order in Council under subsection (1).
	(4)   No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
	(5)   But subsection (4) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.
	(6)   A draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) may not be laid before either House of Parliament, or the Assembly, until the Secretary of State has undertaken such consultation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(7)   For further provision about referendums held by virtue of subsection (1) see Schedule 6.
	(8)   In this Act, the Assembly Measure provisions means sections 92 to 101.'.
	New clause 19Referendum about commencement of Assembly Measure provisions (No. 2)
	'(1)   Her Majesty may by Order in Council cause a referendum to be held throughout Wales about whether the Assembly Measure provisions should come into force.
	(2)   If the majority of voters in a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, the Assembly Measure provisions are to come into force in accordance with section 92.
	(3)   But if they do not, no subsequent Order in Council under subsection (1) may be made until eight years have elapsed after the referendum held by virtue of the first such Order in Council.
	(4)   If the majority of voters in a second referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) do not vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, no further Order in Council under subsection (1) may be made.
	(5)   No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
	(6)   But subsection (5) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.
	(7)   A draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) may not be laid before either House of Parliament, or the Assembly, until the Secretary of State has undertaken such consultation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(8)   For further provision about referendums held by virtue of subsection (1) see Schedule 6.
	(9)   In this Act, the Assembly Measure provisions means sections 92 to 101.'.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that in the course of our consideration of this group of amendments we will not hear about Ministers or Government Members engaging in debate by press release. You might not know, Sir Nicholas, that the Government issued a press release and the article that resulted from it was headed, Hain accuses Tories of a bid to 'castrate' Assembly. I have never been accused of trying to castrate anything, let alone an Assembly. I know that the Government are hideboundthey have got themselves into a Procrustean bed that they cannot get out ofbut they will have to get used to the idea that the Opposition are trying hard to improve the position of the people of Wales. Through this group of amendments, we are trying to ensure that the people of Wales have a vote and a say in the matters that are before the Committee.
	Clause 92 is the foundation stone of the new legislative architecture being constructed by the Government and it was debated in some detail in relation to the last group of amendments. It is the clause that confers on the Assembly the power to make a type of legislation in relation to Wales known as an Assembly Measure. In the previous debate, the Minister said that the clause provided enhanced legislative powers. That means that the status quo will not remain and that the Assembly will have enhanced capabilities, over and above those that were originally envisaged. According to the explanatory notes,
	Measures will . . . have the same effect as an Act of Parliament.
	The notes continue:
	they may modify the effect of legislation made or enacted before or after this Bill is enacted, or make entirely new provision.
	Under the clause, even if the process of enacting an Assembly Measure is invalid or irregular, that will not stop the Measure becoming law. That is set out in subsection (3).
	Our amendments are designed to give the people of Wales a voice before that new, complex anddare I suggestcunning legislative device comes into force. Let me make it clear that we are not seeking a referendum because we believe that it would fail, or that it would succeed. We are keen to ensure that the Assembly develops in the way that the people of Wales want it to develop. Their wants and needs should be paramount.

Philip Hollobone: That is a crucial point. The National Assembly was set up after a referendumalbeit one whose result was extremely closeand any substantive changes to the way in which the Assembly operates should also be put to the people of Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is no doubt that if the people of Wales think that they are getting one thing when they are, in fact, getting another, it would be incorrect not to consult them or give them the opportunity to have a say on that specific matter. [Interruption.] I am being told by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that they had a general election. There is no doubt that these matters were raised during the general election, but they were not raised in the detail that we now have before us in the Bill. It is only right that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the details, and if the Opposition genuinely conclude that the status quo has not been maintained and the caravan has moved on, it is only right that the people of Wales be taken along with it.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is especially true for those of us who are opposed to referendums in principle? If one has had a referendum on a particular constitutional base, one is then placed in great difficulty if the same mechanism is not used to ask when one wants to make a change. The Government are pretending not to be making a change in order to avoid that mechanism. Even those of us who hate referendums have to accept that the process is a continuation of one that, unfortunately, the Government forced through previously.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that generous intervention, not least because I know that, in normal circumstances and on most matters, his face is set firmly against referendums. However, if a referendum has been offered initially, it is dishonest to take the process forward without going back to consult the people. I concede that point.

Ian Lucas: In that case, why is the hon. Lady not calling for a referendum on the abolition of the corporate status of the Assembly?

Cheryl Gillan: I do not believe that that is a constitutional issue. Progress on the separation of powers is based on a consensus across the board. It is something to which the Secretary of State and all parties represented in the House acceded, particularly on Second Reading. But by all means, if the hon. Gentleman would like a referendum on that, perhaps he will persuade those on the Government Front Bench to offer it. I confine myself to changes in the legislative process whereby primary legislative powers are no longer to be reserved to the House, but will be passed down to the Assembly. The people of Wales ought to be given a voice. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman supported me, as I am supporting the people of Wales.

Ian Lucas: I will take no lectures from the hon. Lady concerning the people of Wales, some of whom I represent. I should have thought that the hon. Lady, who has been in the House far longer than I, understood that the abolition of the corporate status of the Assembly is indeed a constitutional amendment. I am not calling for a referendum on the proposal relating to Assembly Measures; she is. The logic of her position is that she should call for a referendum on the abolition of corporate status.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is trying to take us down a road that I do not wish to follow. I agree that the Assembly has not been functioning correctly. That is partly due to the confusion over the difference between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly itself. If there is a consensus across the board, I see no reason to call a referendum. However, on legislative matters, there is a reason to call a referendum. I hope the hon. Gentleman will follow the argument as I present it, as he may wish to give his constituents the voice that I seek to offer them.

David Jones: Is not the essential point that the Government propose the transfer of primary powers from this place to another legislative body? Is it not the case that a convention has emerged over the years that where power is ceded by Parliament to another body, be it the European Union, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, the people are consulted in a referendum? That is being denied them on this occasion by the Government.

Cheryl Gillan: The point stands alone. I invite Labour Members who want the people of Wales to be given a voice in the process to join us in the Lobby tonight and support a referendum.

Mark Tami: If the hon. Lady and her party are so fond of referendums, can she tell me how many referendums the Conservatives have given the British people?

Cheryl Gillan: This is not a trivia quiz; it is a serious proposition. If this is the first referendum that we give the people in Wales, the hon. Gentleman ought to welcome it. His Government believed in offering referendums when it suited them, but when it does not suit them, they do not permit the people to have a voice.
	Let us deal with the principle of a referendum. The Government are clearly not averse to referendums. The Bill allows for a referendum prior to full legislative powers being devolved to the Assembly. I hope Labour Members agree that there is no objection in principle to a referendum. I assume they have no objection and will support the referendum offered in part 4.
	On Second Reading the Secretary of State gave the impression that he thought the question as to whether to grant interim powers by Orders in Council was too complex to be put to the people in Wales. If that is the case, it is appalling that the Government do not consider the electorate sufficiently intelligent to understand what they are proposing for Wales, and that they should not be consulted. A referendum at this point would ensure that resources were used to promulgate the work of the Assembly. It is the Secretary of State who is afraid that any referendum at this stage would be lost. I hate to remind the Minister that the Secretary of State said:
	Rhodri and I and Welsh Labour are not in the business of calling referendums we are going to lose.
	His fear is robbing the people of Wales of both information and choice.
	There we have it; referendums are all right in principle. The Labour Government will hold a referendum, but only if it suits them, and certainly not a referendum that may suit the people of Wales.

Peter Bone: Is that not the nub of the argument? The Government have learned from their experience with referendums of the regions that they can lose them. Is that why they do not trust the people of Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: Ah, yes; once bitten, twice shy. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the north-east referendum. When the Labour Government think they will win, they hold a referendum. If they think they may not win, or there is a chance that another view will be expressed, they have no intention of allowing that device to be used by the people.
	The next point that we need to consider is whether the proposal is for a fundamental change. Throughout the debate, the Secretary of State and the Minister have tried to talk up the Assembly Measures as a more radical devolution, or to talk down the Measures as merely a device of convenience to overcome legislative roadblocks. The proposal is a handling plan to appease the opposing factions in the Labour party. They should not try to pull the wool over our eyes in order to sort out their internal differences.
	When giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 10 December the Secretary of State said that the device enabled the Government to
	get on with the job in the meantime and give substantial powers . . . to the Assembly through Orders in Council between 2007 and 2011.
	On Second Reading the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who sadly is not in his place, raised concerns. He said that he believed it was technically possible under these provisions for the full legislative objective to be achieved without a referendum. He raised further concerns about what he described as a Trojan horse. He said that
	if just one non-controversial, innocuous order is passed, a policy area is opened. Once that happens, the Assembly is free to introduce new measures with different policy objectives, without having to go for a further order. It is a form of creeping devolution.[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 53.]
	I hope the Minister will take seriously the words of the Father of the House.
	Last week in the debate in the Assembly the First Minister, who has been alerted to the possibility of having primary legislative powers in all but name and without the inconvenience of a referendum, said that every party in Wales would be able to start the process of preparing their manifestos on the basis of the extension of the Assembly's law-making powers. He went on to boast that the third Assembly would have far greater law-making powers than the first and second, which meant more meat on the bones, more choice for the people and more power for the people of Wales.
	Let us be clear. There will not be more power for the people of Wales. There will be more power for the Labour Executive in Wales, whether the people want them to have it or not. The First Minister has no plans to ask them, either.
	The provisions extend significantly the powers of the Assembly and the people should be consulted first, not least as this is not what they voted for in the last referendum which, as everybody recalls, was won by a whisker. What did the people of Wales vote for? We are all more than aware of their lukewarm endorsement of the original Assembly provisions. However, I am more concerned with what the people of Wales think they have voted for, rather than reliving the referendum.
	I have examined the policy papers produced in August 1997. They make extremely interesting reading. In policy paper 3 the Government told the people that the Assembly would consider how new laws from the Westminster Parliament would be implemented in Wales, and that the Assembly would fill in the details of those laws by secondary legislation to reflect the needs in Wales. The policy paper answers those questions by saying that primary legislation will be made in Westminster, and that it effectively will be interpreted in Wales by the Assembly. So the people of Wales were led to believe that they were voting only for secondary legislation.
	More importantly, in answer to a question in policy paper 6, the Government answered the question as to why the referendum would not offer a wide range of options such as full independence by saying that Ministers believed that those options had been rejected by the voters in the general election. They said that the purpose of the referendum was to seek endorsement of the Government's detailed plans that voters had accepted in principle. In other words, the last referendum was specifically on the detailed plans that were enacted in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and not on the general outline. The people were certainly neither consulted on, nor led to believe that they would get, the system that is before us today.

John Gummer: Is it not worse than that? Is it not true that when Labour politicians saw how close the result of the referendum was likely to be, they went round the Principality telling people that they need not be frightened, because the proposals were a step not towards a Welsh Parliament but towards a kind of local government in which Wales would be able properly to examine the details rather than the principles? If they had not done that, they would have lost even that referendum.

Cheryl Gillan: I have always had the impression, from talking to people who lived through that, that the message from the Government at the time was the one that they thought their audience wanted to hear. On one street corner, they played the proposals down, telling people that they would stay firmly part of the United Kingdom, that primary legislation would remain with Parliament, and that the Assembly would deal only with secondary legislation, while on the next street corner, they were selling the measures as the final road to independence.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shared many a platform with people from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats at that time, and I did not hear any of that kind of thing being said. While the hon. Lady is talking about putting this question to the people of Wales, may I ask her to comment on something that her leader in the Welsh Assembly said recently? He said:
	I think we have at the moment an insecure settlement which cannot persist. We either need to move forward to legislative powers or abolish the assembly and I think that's not an option. We've got to see how we can move things forward and that's got to mean legislative powers.
	Another senior member of her party in the Assembly, Glyn Davies, said on 15 June 2005 that he agreed with the
	objective of a law-making Assembly as the only way to create true accountability for the Government in the National Assembly.
	Neither of those hon. Gentlemen said anything about involving the people in such a decision.

Cheryl Gillan: These are obviously selective quotes from the hon. Gentleman. However, neither of those statements is incompatible with our view that, if we are to move forward in that fashion, we should hold a referendum. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman appreciated the spirit of our amendment, which would allow the people of Wales to have a voice. Too often, they have been ignored. The amendment would provide the opportunity for them to say what they would like and whether they approved of the detailed plans in the Bill. If the people of Wales were capable of being consulted on the detailed proposals before, why not ask them again this time, when the mechanisms for legislation and the outcomes are so patently perceived to be changing in such a complex and opaque fashion?
	Another reason that is given for the introduction of Assembly Measures is the lack of parliamentary time and the alleged frustrations of the Welsh Assembly Ministers with their failure to secure legislative time. When I spoke to the First Minister a few weeks ago, the only real example that he cited was the failure to get legislation considered that would make St. David's day a bank holiday. In other words, it was a proposal that he had put forward and that the Government had sought to block by ignoring it.
	There is no real evidence of a vast backlog of legislation. These measures are therefore an indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State fights his corner in Cabinet for legislative time to be given to Wales. If that is the case, will a full list of every proposal that has been rejected by the Labour Government to date be placed before the House? I invite the Minister to place in the Library of both Houses a list of the requests that the Secretary of State and the Department have received from the Assembly that they have failed to satisfy. If we had that list before us, we would be better able to understand the position relating to the legislative timetable and the blockage to which everyone is alluding.
	It is interesting that, while we are arguing about this in Westminster, the First Minister is arguing a different point in the Welsh Assembly. Last week, he stated that a Westminster Department or two would be able to get a Bill that they would not be able to get at the moment because of the lack of time in the parliamentary year. It is interesting that the Assembly should be pleading the case of Government Departments here, but I find it hard to believe that the parliamentary timetable is really so overcrowded, especially as the Government have now pulled their Northern Ireland on-the-runs legislation and appear to have pulled their legislation on the National Offender Management Service. They are also devoting six days on the Floor of the House to this Bill. I believe that there would have been plenty of time to accommodate not only the hard-done-by Westminster Departments so fondly defended by the First Minister but any outstanding requests from the Assembly.
	However, the very fact that detailed scrutiny is to pass to the Assembly highlights the variation between the Government's proposals and what the people of Wales have voted for. Such a change should receive their blessing or otherwise. Such a complicated process should not be put before the House when we could dispense with part 3 if we speeded up the process here and left in the Bill future legislative powers and the provision for the main referendum that has already been suggested. I believe that there is enough parliamentary time, and that this is really a question of business management. However, if this procedure is to be introduced, the people of Wales should have a voice in the matter.
	Furthermore, the Minister should have consulted fully in this Parliament before the Bill goes through. In order to know what we would be putting to the people of Wales in a referendum, we should ensure that we have considered these proposals properly in this House and the other place. I was surprised to find that the proposals for the Assembly Measures had not been examined by the Procedure Committee in this House. I wrote to its Chairman on 11 January to ask the Committee to examine the implications of the legislative proposals in the Bill, so that it could give its view on parliamentary scrutiny for the procedures in both Houses. Before any matter is put to the people of Wales in any referendum, they should know the views of this House on the procedures that are being promulgated.
	On Second Reading, the Secretary of State gave the impression that these matters had been discussed with Lord Holme and Lord Dahrendorf, the Chairmen, respectively, of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee in another place, and that the Committees had been consulted. However, reading the letters from those Chairmen to the Secretary of State that have been placed in the Library of both Houses, it is obvious that neither the Committees nor the Chairmen had even seen the Bill, let alone had the opportunity to comment on it in any fashion. So perhaps the Minister could let us have sight of the response of the Secretary of State and tell us whether the Committees of this House and the other place will have the chance to examine these complex procedures, which were certainly not envisaged by the Richard commission. They would need to be examined to discover the full implications of what we would be putting to the people of Wales in a referendum. As Lord Richard suggested, as a very minimum, the Henry VIII powers ought to be considered, not least to see whether a more transparent and understandable method could be used than the tortuous route envisaged under the Order in Council mechanism.
	The Conservative party is committed to giving the Assembly the chance to work well. I do not want to rehearse the argument that we should allow it to improve its current performance before loading more competences on to its Members. As the Richard commission has said, however, given the complexity of devolved powers, knowing what the Assembly can and cannot do is becoming less of a problem for those close to Government, but it remains a central issue of accountability for the people of Wales. Perhaps it would therefore be more sensible to divide the Executive from the Assembly and look for a period of stability rather than load on another piece of complex legislative architecture. Were the Minister to dispense with part 3, maintain the status quo and consider improving the way in which the Welsh Assembly works currentlyas it was envisaged workingperhaps we would withdraw the amendment, as there would be no need to insist on a referendum of the people of Wales.
	I want to prevent an open-ended opportunity for repeated referendums should the initial result not be in accordance with the Government's wishes. As we shall see later in our deliberation of the Bill, the Government have a tendency to leave the door wide open for repeated referendums, as they have done on part 4. That would not be healthy legislation, so one of my amendments would rule that out.
	The Secretary of State and Labour Ministers constantly try to depict the Conservative party as negative towards devolution. As I have explained, we have proposed a referendum not because we would expect a negative reactionI leave that to the Secretary of State and the First Ministerbut simply to ensure that the Government are moving ahead at a speed that is acceptable to the people of Wales. Nor are we reluctant to see further powers given to the Assembly, which should only be done if it has the capability to exercise those powers and the full backing of the Welsh nation.
	We have been disappointed by the progress made by the Assembly in its current tasks and would like to see it improve its performance before we spend more time saddling it with what must be one of the most complicated legislative procedures imaginable. If we burden the Assembly in such a fashion, we will risk its existence, because we will be rushing the process to keep pace with Labour's political timetable.
	The people of Wales deserve better than that. They deserve a voice in the process. We should consult them before the event, not after. If the Minister has the guts to do it, I ask him to accept the amendments and give the people of Wales the vote that they deserve. He was happy enough to consult them previously, and he should be happy to do so again.

Elfyn Llwyd: I oppose the amendments, as I do not believe that the step change contained in part 3 justifies a referendum. Nevertheless, I agree that the referendum provided for in relation to part 4 is warranted, and I would be happy for that to be called. I agree with the   hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs.   Gillan), however, about the correspondence between Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Holme and the Secretary of State. I have also seen copies of letters placed in the Library dated 12 and 13 January, which are, to put it mildly, strident. Whatever has been going on, her call to see a copy of the Secretary of State's response is well made.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is alarming that we should be led to believe one thing on Second Reading when in fact the truth is completely different? In relation to the procedure under discussion, therefore, the Government have not come cleanpassing on primary legislation is an enormous step forward, and the people of Wales should be consulted.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady does not expect me to agree with the second part of her question, but I agree with her on the giving of information on Second Reading. During that debate, we also had a long discussion of little substance about dual candidature. I have yet to see any raison d'tre for that provision. I have scoured the Library, and I cannot find mention of that arrangement anywhere but in relation to pre-revolution Ukraineif that is the example we will be following, heaven help us. In due course, I hope that we can have a copy of the Secretary of State's response to their lordships.

Nick Ainger: I assure the hon. Gentleman and thehon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs.   Gillan) that that letter will be placed in the Library.

Elfyn Llwyd: I earnestly hope that it will not create difficulties between this place and the other place. Traditionally, the other place has had an unsympathetic view of the Order in Council procedure anyway, and I do not think that this matter will assist very much. We will wait to see the response, and I hope that it was placatory.
	We will be unable to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote, but, in one or two respects, I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

John Gummer: I wonder whether it is reasonable to remind the House that those of us who represent English constituencies but come from Welsh stock also have a concern to promote the best possible government for Wales, and have no concern to remove the devolution arrangement, which is now part of our history. Whatever the arguments at the time might have been, that is the point that we have reached. The question that we are asked to discuss today is whether the change being made is sufficiently large to invalidate the decision made when the referendum was held, and to demand another referendum to ensure that the people of Wales wish to make such a step.
	As the House will know, I am a disbeliever in referendums, which I consider to be a foreign and non-parliamentary activity. I would not have had a referendum in the first placeif the imperial Parliament, as it was once called, has decided to devolve its powers, that is a decision that the whole nation makes. That is not what happened, however. In this case, we established that a decision was reached as a result of a referendum. I have voted against referendums in every other circumstance, and I only think it possible to hold one in this case because of continuity with a previous decision that was made as a result of such a referendum.
	Having said that, the Government are being peculiarly difficult in trying to pretend, on the one hand, that the changes are so minor that they do not require this reference to the people of Wales, and on the other, that they are too complicated for the people of Wales to make a decision. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The truth is that the changes are complicated because they are intended to hide the fact that they are so fundamental. The difficulty that the Minister must face is that I can find no parallel for this kind of legislative change outside of the desires of Napoleon III of France to avoid democracy. He used to so complicate the system that, at various points, people had a bit of a say, but, in the end, he gave himself the final say.
	Were I voting in a referendum in Wales, therefore, I would want to ask a lot of questions about the role of the Secretary of State, about where, in the end, the power will lie, and about whether I wanted this change, which removed the power from the democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom but did not give it directly to a democratically elected Assembly in Wales but rather passed it through a series of sieves, one of which was the Secretary of State for Wales, as well as many other mechanisms.
	It seems to me, therefore, that a referendum would give not just the people of Wales but the rest of us an opportunity to be quite sure what the Government are about. In a sense, the more complicated that is, the more important a referendum is. In a referendum, the details would have to be presented to the people of Wales in a form that would allow them reasonably to be expected to be able to make up their minds.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend believe that some of Napoleon's descendants are still hard at work complicating matters in another Parliament, in Brussels?

John Gummer: I am a great believer in the Parliament in Brussels. We often find ourselves very much on the side of the French, if we only recognised it. One of our problems is that we do not fight our corner properly in the European Union, because we are always semi-detached from it. Some of my colleagues make it more difficult for us to do that. I think that we ought to be right in there, part of the European Union, determined to make it work more and more effectively.
	That is my view of the European Parliament. I also want the Welsh Assembly to work more effectively, but it will not work effectively if the proposals are so complex and the democratic deficit so obvious that the Minister is not prepared to put the proposals to a vote.
	There is another problem with not having a referendum. I do not think that the Minister recognises the growing anger in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in England, about the fact that, increasingly, power is being removed from the House of Commons in relation to Wales and Scotland, but representatives of Wales and Scotland can make decisions on issues in parts of England where people have no right to say anything about Wales and Scotland. The referendum is crucial in that regard. At least my constituents must know that the people of Wales want this. That will give them a start. They may ask for a change in the way in which things work here, but I think it very bad in today's society to make changes in the constitution when there is uncertainty about whether they are wanted by those for whom they are being made. I believe that the deficit in trust that the Government have extended should concern us all, wherever we come from.

Elfyn Llwyd: Let me make two points. First, the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly at the last election in favour of three parties that promised a strengthened National Assembly akin to a Parliament. Secondly, the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument suggests that he should be pressing for an English Parliament, and good luck to him.

John Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman so often that I do not want to fall out with him on this issue. I am sufficiently concerned about the unity of the United Kingdom to say that I would prefer the simpler course of enabling English Members of Parliament to vote on English matters, and not allowing those who do not represent English seats to vote on matters that are devolved to their areas. That would mean that in some cases Welsh Members could vote and in other cases they could not, and that in many cases Scottish Members could not vote at all. It strikes me as a reasonable solution. I do not want a separate Parliament, and I do not think that it would be suitable.
	Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the issue before us is the nature of the referendum. I think that if I took up his point about an English Parliament, Sir Michael, you would rightly call me to order. I find it odd that the hon. Gentleman, who has upheld the democratic way in a manner that is not always observed on the Labour Benches, does not want a referendum that would give his party an opportunity to explain why it would like to go further than the Government are going. I should have thought that it would also give him an opportunity to dissect the divisions in the Labour party that have resulted in this ridiculous proposal.
	As we know perfectly well, notwithstanding all the ideas about Orders in Council and the Secretary of State for Wales and an hour and a half of discussion in the Select Committee, all this has come about purely because there are two diametrically opposed groups in the Labour partythose who want more powers for the Assembly, and those who want fewer powers for it. They have produced a result that appears to give more powers, but in such a complicated way that the Minister is not even prepared to try to explain it to his electorate. He clearly does not want the opportunity to do so, because it would be too difficult. He found it difficult enough to explain to the Committee, let alone the electorate.
	I should have thought, however, that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and his party would be delighted to give this dying Government, in particular, an opportunity to push the proposal in the Principality. The fact that he does not want a referendum makes me worry considerably on his behalf. However, I urge the Committee to vote for the referendum not because I believe in referendums, but because I believe in keeping our word. In the last referendum, the word was that there would be a limited kind of devolution, different in nature from that provided for Scotland, and by a very small majority the proposal was passed. Whatever we hear sotto voce from the Minister about the referendum, I know perfectly well what went on. It was very simple. The Labour party snatched the last few votes by promising that it would not be all that different.

David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: I will in a moment, although the hon. Gentleman has not been present much today.
	That is how the Labour party won the referendum, and it strikes me as an instance of constitutional impropriety for the party, having won it on that basis, to slide through significant changes without asking again.

David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the arrangements put to the UK population, and indeed the Welsh population, in the original referendum are now being expanded with no further consultation or soundings. As recently as nine months ago, precisely what is in the Bill was contained in the UK-wide Labour manifesto and in the Welsh manifesto, and was put to the people accordingly.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman was not present to hear his Minister explain to us that the issue was so complicated that it was not possible to put it in a referendum. For him to claim that it was not so complicated when it came to a general election is fatuous. He knows perfectly well that in a general election people vote on a range of matters. I do not accept that that grants any kind of mandate for change in a referendum matter.
	The hon. Gentleman ought to have been present to note the care with which I said[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should stop blowing his top in that amazing manner and listen.
	I have said from the outset that I oppose referendums. I believe that Parliament ought to make the decisions. I believe that general elections are about giving mandates to parliamentarians to make decisions. The Government, however, do not believe that. The Government decided that there would be a referendum on this issue, and then said We make changes that are so complicated that we cannot put them to the electorate in a referendum, but the electorate understood them enough to vote in a general election. It is impossible to uphold that argument.
	The issue seems simple to us. We say There was a referendum. Some of us did not want it, and do not like referendums. But when a referendum has taken place, it is dishonourable to turn to the people of Wales and say 'We are going to change the deal on which you vote without giving you an opportunity to understand clearly what we are doing, and to say whether you want it or not'. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do that, I suggest that it is because he thinks he would loseand if that is the reason, it is even more dishonourable than the first.

David Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to pick up some of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I remind the Committee that the last referendum was indeed very narrowly won, and that only one in four people voted in favour of the Assembly. The referendum was narrowly won, despite the fact that the Government spent vast amounts of money putting out one document after another purporting to show what a utopia Wales would be if and when the referendum were won. To some extent, they also encouraged people to vote in favour of the Assembly by deliberately holding the referendum one week after the referendum in Scotland. They were not prepared to risk Wales voting on the same day. Most important, they made it clear all along that the people of Wales would be voting on a Welsh Assembly, not a Parliament. Despite all that, they could only get a very narrow result in favour of a Welsh Assemblythe difference was about 2,000 votes. To change the ground rules just seven years or so after that referendum would be unfair and cheat the people of Wales.
	The reality is that we are embarking on a huge constitutional change that has not been thought through properly. No one has sat down in government and thought where they want the British constitution to be and how they will reach that state. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal has pointed out, we still have the huge difficulty of providing an answer to the West Lothian question. I do not happen to know what the answer is. We cannot carry on with the status quo. I do not like the idea of more politicians sitting in an English Parliament. I tend to go along with my right hon. Friend's view that preventing Welsh and Scottish Members from voting is the answer, but the constitution is a fragile flower and if we are going to start tampering with it, we need to be clear what we are trying to achieve.
	For example, there is, within one strand of the Conservative party, a perfectly logical argument for some sort of federal United Kingdom. I do not happen to share that argument but I can see the logic of it. However, if one is going to go down that line, one has to say so from the start and set out exactly how it will be achieved on an equitable basis.
	We now have the prospect of yet more powers for the Welsh Assembly without any of those other questions being answered, and those questions will get bigger and bigger. That is why it is important that we have a referendum. It is only fair. Before the referendum took place, the former Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, was asked in The Western Mail:
	Is a Welsh Assembly seen as an end in itself, or the first step towards a fully federal system in Britain.
	He said:
	This question is based on a false antithesis. It is an end in itself.
	If the Welsh Assembly were an end in itself back in 1998, it is completely wrong that we should come back just a few years later to discuss giving it significant further powers, without any prospect of a further referendum. Therefore, I support the amendment.

David Jones: I also support the amendment wholeheartedly because it seeks to redress the fundamental dishonesty of the Bill, namely, that the powers that are to be transferred are so small and modest that they do not need to be put to a vote of the Welsh people. We have heard already that those powers can be used for the purpose of amending, extending or repealing Acts of Parliament. It is hard to think of powers that can be more extensive than those.
	We have heard that in 1997 it was made abundantly clear to the people of Wales what they were voting foran Assembly that would assume responsibility for exercising the powers that were at that stage exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. They were secondary law-making powers. The Minister has conceded today that what is proposed is the extension of primary legislative competence to the Welsh Assembly, not as a block but, as was eloquently described by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on Second Reading, on a salami-slicing basis: a bit of power is given here, a bit more next year, then a bit more and a bit more. Ultimately, we end up with the whole salami transferred to the devolved body and none left with Parliament. That is by any standard a major transfer of power. The convention in this country is that such transfers of power are put to the vote of the people in a referendum.
	It is abundantly clear why the Government do not want a vote. It is because, as the Secretary of State has already conceded, they know that they would lose the vote. It is simple. He said that the Labour party is not in the business of holding referendums that it knows it would lose. This is an illegitimate, dishonest device for getting around the problem of going to the people in a referendum.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that gives the lie to the argument that the Labour party has a mandate because of the general election? If it were so sure of its mandate because of the general election, would it not be happy to have a referendum? Is it not the case, in fact, that it knows perfectly well that the people of Wales did not vote on the issue at all at the general election?

David Jones: Not only did the people of Wales not vote on the issue, but the Labour party knows that, if it were to hold a referendum, it would lose it.
	Lord Richard made the position clear in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. It is worth quoting. He hit the nail on the head:
	Let's be frank about it, it is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster and ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device. It is quite a good device in that sense because what you end up with is a situation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers, Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could, in effect, be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff.
	That is exactly what is proposed by the Government. They are behaving in the most dishonest fashion. I, as a Welsh Member, sitting for a Welsh constituency, feel angry that they will not give the people of Wales the right to vote in a referendum. If the Government are so convinced that what they are proposing is for the good of the people of Wales, let them ask the people of Wales. Otherwise, let them withdraw their proposals.

Nick Ainger: I think that everyone has got it off their chest nowthis artificial indignation, saying that we have something to hide, are misleading the people of Wales and are dishonest. It may be helpful to Conservative Members to read out from the public document that was the UK Labour party's manifesto and the manifesto that we fought the election under in Wales. The UK manifesto says:
	In Wales we will develop democratic devolution by creating a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers and a reformed structure and electoral system to make the exercise of Assembly responsibilities clearer and more accountable to the public.
	The Welsh manifesto said:
	In a third term we will legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers. We will improve the accountability of Ministers.
	He has now left his place, but as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the Labour party fought on that manifesto, which was open with the people of Wales that we would give them enhanced legislative powers. I know that Plaid Cymru went further, as did the Liberal Democrats. In Wales, overwhelmingly, those parties that won were looking to give the Assembly more legislative powers. For Conservative Members to claim that we have been trying to slip the proposal through and hide it is totally unacceptable and contrary to the facts. The Labour party had a special conference in September 2004, some six months before the general election, in which we clearly debated the issue and formulated the policy on which that manifesto commitment was based. We have not been trying to slip something through, as was confirmed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, to whom I am grateful. Conservative Members have failed to make the case that the proposal represents such a substantive change from the position in the 1997 referendum, and the case that was put then, that a second referendum is justified.
	At all stages, Parliament will be able to grant powers to the Assembly that are very confined. That means that the change is not hugeunlike the major constitutional change that followed the 1997 election, when the 60 Members of the Assembly were elected. They were given Executive powers and the ability to deal with secondary legislation that previously had been handled by this place.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that such significant changeshe did not say how they were significantwarranted a referendum. However, part 4 of the Bill states that there will be a referendum if there is a call to move to full primary powers. We are not hiding that, or trying to run away from holding a referendum, as we will hold referendums when they are warranted. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman ask why, if we were so confident of our manifesto commitment, we were reluctant to put it to a referendum. Our manifesto contained many pledges to the people of Wales and of England, so is it being suggested that all those commitments should be subject to the referendum process? That would be a nonsense. The people of Wales and the rest of the UK gave this Government a mandate to implement this specific manifesto commitment, and that is what we intend to do.

David Jones: Is the Minister suggesting that it was proper to offer the people of Wales a referendum on the devolution of secondary powers, but not to do so when primary powers are being devolved, albeit on a piecemeal basis?

Nick Ainger: That is exactly the pointwe are devolving primary powers on a case-by-case basis. In each case, Parliament will decide whether it agrees that a measure should be sent down for the Assembly to develop its Assembly Measures.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) referred to the comment made on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that this was a salami-slicing process. Schedule 5 sets out the process by which matters that can be legislated on are identified, so if my right hon. Friend is right, the salami is an awfully long one. Some would say that the Bill goes the whole hog, but if that is true the hog comes rasher by rasher. The Opposition seem to fear primary powers being devolved without a referendum, but that process will take many years, during which time I believe that a referendum is bound to be held.

Alan Williams: On Second Reading, I was trying to make the point that the Government would continue the process of salami-slicing even if a referendum said no.

Nick Ainger: That is true, but it will happen on a case-by-case basis. The documents placed by the Government in the Library give a clear and focused definition of the powers that each Order in Council would confer.

David Davies: I shall twist the Minister's metaphor a little further. He has talked about salami slices and rashers, but are not the complicated constitutional measures in the Bill more of a dog's breakfast than a cooked breakfast? Few people will understand it.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman made a hash of that.

Nick Ainger: My hon. Friend is right to say that the hon. Gentleman made a bit of a hash of his question, but I do not think that the proposal is that complicated. It is certainly more transparent than the current process. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked how many pieces of legislation the Assembly had asked for. I shall not deal with every request since 1999, but at present there are three proposals for Bills that it would like to have on the statute book.
	In this Session, the Government are dealing with this Bill and two others. In addition, there have been requests for Bills on tourism and accommodation registration, housing, and local government community councils. There is no way that those Bills could be fitted into the legislative programme for this Session, as they would have to compete with Bills coming from all the Departments in Whitehall. The main purpose of these proposals is to ensure that the Assembly can get the legislation that it needs in a reasonable time and without encountering the logjam that exists as a result of our processes in this Parliament.

Cheryl Gillan: The three pieces of legislation to which the Minister referred could easily be dealt with in less than the time being devoted on the Floor of the House to this Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will give his opinion on what Lord Richard told the Welsh Affairs Committee. He said:
	Let's be frank about it, it is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster and ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device. It is quite a good device in that sense because what you end up with is a situation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers, Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could, in effect, be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff.
	Is Lord Richard absolutely wrong, or is his experience coming to the fore? Is he giving us the real view of a procedure about which we believe that the people of Wales should have their say?

Nick Ainger: I disagree with Lord Richard on his last point. The Bill is extremely transparent and conceals nothing. There will be pre-legislative scrutiny of all the relevant Orders in Council, the Assembly will use its own procedures to give proper scrutiny to Assembly Measures, and this House and the House of Lords will be able to decide whether the powers defined in the Order in Council should be given to the Assembly.That is a much more transparent system than what we have now. Under the present system, the Assembly can make a request for primary legislation, but there is no real discussion about why that legislation gets delayed or is prevented from reaching the statute book.
	On the previous group of amendments, we debated at some length how the proposed powers will work and the degree of change that they represent. The Government argue that Parliament will retain control of the process by which power is given to the Assembly to legislate in clearly defined areas, so the Bill does not represent a change that is so substantial and significant that it warrants a referendum. Moreover, I challenge Opposition Members with Welsh constituencies to say how many people have gone to their weekly surgeriesor written to them, or phoned their officesto demand a referendum on the Orders in Council. The fact is that nobody has expressed any concern about a referendumexcept members of the Conservative party. I understand that Nick Bourne, who leads the Conservatives in the Assembly, has gone on record as saying that there are divisions within the party on this issue. One good reason for having a referendum is to resolve that issue within the Conservative party.

Cheryl Gillan: Nick Bourne went on to say that there are also divisions in the Labour party on this issue, as evidenced by voting on the Welsh Affairs Committee report, so the Minister should not be quite so keen to attack; rather, he should address the divisions in his own party. He asks how many people have asked for a referendum, but how many have been excitedly battering down his door and asking for this convoluted Orders-in-Council process? Where has the demand come from? If he can point to it, I should be delighted to read the references in the Libraries of both Houses. I do not believe that anybody has been demanding this process, except for the Labour Government.

Nick Ainger: As I pointed out earlier, the three main political parties in Wales stood on manifestos that made it clear that they intended to give enhanced powers, in various forms, to the Assembly. If such demands had not come from those parties, why on earth would we have introduced this legislation? It stands to reason that there is demand in Wales for giving the Assembly enhanced powers, but Conservative Members seem not to want to accept that. The manifesto on which we fought the last election, and won, made it very clear that we intended to give the Assembly enhanced powers. However, the structure that we have provided means that Parliament will remain in control of deciding which powers we will give. That constitutes no significant change from the current settlement, so it does not warrant a referendum. I therefore urge colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: It was interesting to note that when the Minister began his response to this group of amendments, the first thing that he said was, I am so glad that Members have managed to get that off their chest. Perhaps a lad from Sheffield cannot understand how passionately some Conservative Members feel about Wales, but they do. Indeed, that is perhaps the nub of this debate. The Labour party cannot stand the fact that the Conservatives have been listening to the people of Wales, are now representing them across the boardboth in the Assembly and in this Houseand want to speak up on their behalf.
	We have had a good debate on this group of amendments. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on this issue; I would have expected him to support me, but I understand his position. I hope that he may support me on some other amendments because we do make common cause in certain instances. I am surprised that he does not support my proposed device, which would give the people of Wales a greater voice.
	I hope that people will take note of the honest contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is fundamentally against referendums. None the less, he insists on voting to enable the people of Wales to have a voice through a referendum, because they were consulted on this issue in the first place and because the powers being granted reveal an almost Napoleonic tendency, as he described it. Indeed, given the power granted in clause 94(7)(b), the Secretary of State could almost be called Napoleon himself.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) also made a good speech. He pointed out that the Labour Government do not know where they are going or when they are going to get there. They certainly are not bothering to consult other people or take them with them down that road. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) also made a passionate and powerful speech, which was about protecting his constituents and the people of Wales in general.
	This is a complex and unique procedure that amounts to giving enhanced powers and making a fundamental change. So far as I can ascertain, the proposals in part 3 have not been scrutinised by Committees of this House in any detail, despite the Secretary of State trying to give us the opposite impression. This is not what the people of Wales voted for last time and, with respect to the Minister, it is not what they voted for at the general election. They did not have the opportunity to scrutinise the detailed proposals contained in this legislation, and they should have that opportunity. If their views were so important in the first instance, why is it right to disregard them now because of political convenience and expediency?
	If this provision is supposed to be compensation for a lack of time for scrutiny, it constitutes bad management. We ought not to be legislating for such a convoluted constitutional procedure simply because we cannot get three measures through. We could have got three measures through in the time that has been allocated to discussing this Bill. We could have supported a truncated Bill, which could have gone through this House relatively quickly, had the Minister removed part 3, for example.
	The Bill also diminishes the level of scrutiny in this House. We must remember that the people of Wales vote for MPs in this House not just from the Conservative party but from all other parties, including the Labour party. I notice that Labour Members for Wales have chosen not to contribute to this debatethey have chosen not to let us know whether they would like to grant their constituents the opportunity to have a say in this process.
	This is not a transparent process. We are about to enact a procedure whereby Assembly Measures cannot be amended in this House. This is a very important and complicated procedure that will be able to pass, in all but name, primary legislative powers to the Assembly without the people of Wales realising what the Government are doing. Such a confidence trick is perhaps to be admired, but I do not admire it. The Government are pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of Wales. Therefore, I have no choice but to invite Members to join me in the Lobby tonight, if they believe that the people of Wales should have a voice. If, however, they believe that the Government know best and that Napoleon should get his way, they will of course vote against the amendment. But if they do, they will rue the day that they tried to silence the people of Wales in such an inappropriate fashion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 93
	  
	Legislative competence

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 50, line 21, leave out from 'competence' to end of line 4 on page 51 and insert
	'unless it relates to one or more of the reserved matters specified in Schedule [Reserved matters].'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New schedule 1'RESERVED MATTERS
	PART 1
	GENERAL RESERVATIONS
	The Constitution
	1  The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is
	(a)   the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
	(b)   the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
	(c)   the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
	(d)   the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
	2   (1)   Paragraph 1 does not reserve
	(a)   Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive functions,
	(b)   functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, or
	(c)   any office in the Welsh Administration.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the management (in accordance with any enactment regulating the use of land) of the Crown Estate.
	(3)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.
	3   (1)   Paragraph 1 does not reserve property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to any person acting on behalf of the Crown or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of any person acting on behalf of the Crown.
	(2)   Paragraph 1 does not reserve the ultimate superiority of the Crown.
	(3)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of
	(a)   the hereditary revenues of the Crown, other than revenues from bona vacantia, ultimus haeres and treasure trove,
	(b)   the royal arms and standard,
	(c)   the compulsory acquisition of property held or used by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
	4   (1)   Paragraph 1 does not reserve property held by Her Majesty in Her private capacity.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the subject-matter of the Crown Private Estates Acts 1800 to 1973.
	Political parties
	5  The registration and funding of political parties is a reserved matter.
	Foreign affairs etc.
	6   (1)   International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve
	(a)   observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law,
	(b)   assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies.
	Public service
	7  The Civil Service of the State is a reserved matter.
	Defence
	8   (1)   The following are reserved matters
	(a)   the defence of the realm,
	(b)   the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, including reserve forces,
	(c)   visiting forces,
	(d)   international headquarters and defence organisations,
	(e)   trading with the enemy and enemy property.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve
	(a)   the exercise of civil defence functions by any person otherwise than as a member of any force or organisation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to (d) or any other force or organisation reserved by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a),
	(b)   the conferral of enforcement powers in relation to sea fishing.
	Treason
	9  Treason (including constructive treason), treason felony and misprision of treason are reserved matters.
	PART 2
	SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS
	Preliminary
	1  The matters to which any of the sections in this Part apply are reserved matters for the purposes of this Act.
	2  A section applies to any matter described or referred to in it when read with any illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions in that section.
	3  Any illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions in a section relate only to that Section (so that an entry under the heading exceptions does not affect any other Section).
	Reservations
	Head AFinancial and Economic Matters
	  A1.   Fiscal, economic and monetary policy Fiscal, economic and monetary policy, including the issue and circulation of money, taxes and excise duties, government borrowing and lending, control over United Kingdom public expenditure, the exchange rate and the Bank of England.
	  Exception
	Local taxes to fund local authority expenditure (for example, council tax and non-domestic rates).
	  A2. The Currency Coinage, legal tender and bank notes.
	  A3.   Financial services Financial services, including investment business, banking and deposit-taking, collective investment schemes and insurance.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of section 1 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (bank holidays).
	  A4. Financial markets Financial markets, including listing and public offers of securities and investments, transfer of securities and insider dealing.
	  A5. Money laundering The subject-matter of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, but in relation to any type of business.
	Head BHome Affairs
	  B1.   Misuse of drugs   The subject matter of
	(a)   the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,
	(b)   sections 12 to 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (substances useful for manufacture of controlled drugs), and
	(c)   Part V of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (drug trafficking) and, so far as relating to drug trafficking, the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995
	  B2.   Data protection   The subject matter of
	(a)   the Data Protection Act 1998, and,
	(b)   Council Directive 95/46/EC (protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data).
	  Interpretation
	If any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998 is not in force on the principal appointed day, it is to be treated for the purposes of this reservation as if it were.
	  B3.   Elections   Elections for membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Parliament, including the subject matter of
	(a)   the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978,
	(b)   the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985, and
	(c)   the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
	so far as those enactments apply, or may be applied, in respect of such membership.
	  B4.   Firearms   The subject matter of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.
	  B5.   EntertainmentThe subject matter of
	(a)   the Video Recordings Act 1984, and,
	(b)   sections 1 to 3 and 5 to 16 of the Cinemas Act 1985 (control of exhibitions).
	The classification of films for public exhibition by reference to their suitability for viewing by persons generally or above a particular age, with or without any advice as to the desirability of parental guidance.
	  B6.   Immigration and nationality Nationality; immigration, including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens; free movement of persons within the European Economic Area; issue of travel documents.
	  B7.   Scientific procedures on live animals The subject matter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
	  B8.   National security, interception of communications, official secrets and terrorism National security.
	The interception of communications; but not the subject-matter of Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.) or surveillance not involving interference with property.
	The subject matter of
	(a)   the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920, and
	(b)   the Official Secrets Act 1989, except so far as relating to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2)(crime) and not by any other provision of sections 1 to 4.
	Special powers, and other special provisions, for dealing with terrorism.
	  B9.   Betting, gaming and lotteries Betting, gaming and lotteries.
	   B10.   Emergency powers Emergency powers.
	   B11.   Extradition Extradition.
	   B12.   Lieutenancies The subject matter of the Lieutenancies Act 1997.
	Head CTrade and Industry
	  C1.   Business associations The creation, operation, regulation and dissolution of types of business association.
	  Exceptions
	The creation, operation, regulations and dissolution of
	(a)   particular public bodies, or public bodies of a particular type, established by or under any enactment, and
	(b)   charities,
	  Interpretation
	Business association means any person (other than an individual) established for the purpose of carrying on any kind of business, whether or not for profit; and business includes the provision of benefits to the members of an association.
	  C2.   Insolvency   In relation to business associations
	(a)   the modes of, the grounds for and the general legal effect of winding up, and the persons who may initiate winding up,
	(b)   liability to contribute to assets on winding up,
	(c)   powers of courts in relation to proceedings for winding up, other than the power to sist proceedings,
	(d)   arrangements with creditors, and
	(e)   procedures giving protection from creditors.
	Preferred or preferential debts for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986, and any other enactment relating to the sequestration of the estate of any person or to the winding up of business associations, the preference of such debts against other such debts and the extent of their preference over other types of debt.
	  Regulation of insolvency practitioners.
	  Co-operation of insolvency courts.
	  Exceptions
	In relation to business associations
	(a)   the process of winding up, including the person having responsibility for the conduct of a winding up or any part of it, and his conduct of it or of that part,
	(b)   the effect of winding up on diligence, and
	(c)   avoidance and adjustment of prior transactions on winding up
	  Floating charges and receivers, except in relation to preferential debts, regulation of insolvency practitioners and co-operation of insolvency courts.
	  Interpretation
	Business association has the meaning given in Section C1 of this Part of this Schedule.
	Winding up, in relation to business associations, includes winding up of solvent, as well as insolvent, business associations.
	  C3.   Competition   Regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements; abuse of dominant position; monopolies and mergers.
	  Exception
	Regulation of particular practices in the legal profession for the purpose of regulating that profession or the provision of legal services.
	  C4.   Intellectual property   Intellectual property.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal).
	  C5.   Import and export control   The subject matter of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939.
	  Prohibition and regulation of the import and export of endangered species of animals and plants.
	  Exceptions
	Prohibition and regulation of movement into and out of Wales of
	(a)   food, animals, animal products, plants and plant products for the purposes of protecting human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment or observing or implementing obligations under the Common Agricultural Policy, and
	(b)   animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and pesticides for the purposes of protecting human, animal or plant health or the environment.
	  C6.   Consumer protection   Regulation of
	(a)   the sale and supply of goods and services to consumers,
	(b)   guarantees in relation to such goods and services,
	(c)   hire-purchase, including the subject matter of Part III of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964,
	(d)   trade descriptions, except in relation to food,
	(e)   misleading and comparative advertising, except regulation specifically in relation to food, tobacco and tobacco products,
	(f)   price indications,
	(g)   trading stamps,
	(h)   auctions and mock auctions of goods and services, and
	(i)   hallmarking and gun barrel proofing.
	(a)   the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968,
	(b)   the Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts 1971 and 1975,
	(c)   Parts I to III and XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973,
	(d)   the Consumer Credit Act 1974,
	(e)   the Estate Agents Act 1979,
	(f)   the Timeshare Act 1992,
	(g)   the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, and
	(h)   the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990 (food safety and consumer protection).
	  C7.   Product standards, safety and liability   Technical standards and requirements in relation to products in pursuance of an obligation under Community law.
	  Product safety and liability.
	  Product labelling.
	  Exceptions
	Food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish and fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and pesticides.
	In relation to food safety, materials which come into contact with food.
	  C8.   Weights and measures   Units and standards of weight and measurement.
	  Regulation of trade so far as involving weighing, measuring and quantities.
	  C9.   Telecommunications and wireless telegraphy Telecommunications and wireless telegraphy.
	  Internet services.
	  Electronic encryption.
	  The subject matter of Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (electromagnetic disturbance).
	  C10.   Post Office, posts and postal services   The Post Office, posts (including postage stamps, postal orders and postal packets) and regulation of postal services.
	  C11.   Research Councils   Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965.
	  The subject matter of section 5 of that Act (funding of scientific research) so far as relating to Research Councils.
	  C12.   Designation of assisted areas   The subject matter of section 1 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.
	  C13.   Industrial Development Advisory Board   The Industrial Development Advisory Board.
	  C14.   Protection of trading and economic interests   The subject matter of
	(a)   section 2 of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 (Treasury power in relation to action damaging to economic position of United Kingdom),
	(b)   Part II of the Industry Act 1975 (powers in relation to transfer of control of important manufacturing undertakings), and
	(c)   the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980.
	Head DEnergy
	  D1.   Electricity   Generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity.
	  The subject matter of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
	  D2.   Oil and gas   Oil and gas, including
	(a)   the ownership of, exploration for and exploitation of deposits of oil and natural gas,
	(b)   the subject matter of section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 (contributions in connection with mineral exploration) so far as relating to exploration for oil and gas,
	(c)   offshore installations and pipelines,
	(d)   the subject matter of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 (including section 5 (deemed planning permission)) so far as relating to pipelines within the meaning of section 65 of that Act,
	(e)   pollution relating to oil and gas exploration and exploitation, but only outside controlled waters (within the meaning of section 30A(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974),
	(f)   the subject matter of Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 so far as relating to oil and gas exploration and exploitation, but only in relation to activities outside such controlled waters,
	(g)   restrictions on navigation, fishing and other activities in connection with offshore activities,
	(h)   liquefaction of natural gas, and
	(i)   the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas through pipes.
	  Exceptions
	The subject matter of
	(a)   sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 (credits and grants for construction of ships and offshore installations),
	(b)   Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
	  The manufacture of gas.
	  The conveyance, shipping and supply of gas other than through pipes.
	  D3.   Nuclear energy   Nuclear energy and nuclear installations including
	(a)   nuclear safety, security and safeguards, and
	(b)   liability for nuclear occurrences.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of
	(a)   Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and
	(b)   the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
	  D4.   Energy conservation   The subject matter of the Energy Act 1976, other than section 9.
	  Exception
	The encouragement of energy efficiency other than by prohibition or regulation.
	Head ETransport
	  E1.   Road transport   The subject matter of
	(a)   the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act 1952,
	(b)   the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Transport Act 1985, so far as relating to public service vehicle operator licensing,
	(c)   section 17 (traffic regulation on special roads), section 25 (pedestrian crossings), Part V (traffic signs) and Part VI (speed limits) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
	(d)   the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road traffic Offenders Act 1988,
	(e)   the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994,
	(f)   the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995, and
	(g)   the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
	  Regulation of proper hours or periods of work by persons engaged in the carriage of passengers or goods by road.
	  The conditions under which international road transport services for passengers or goods may be undertaken.
	  Regulation of the instruction of drivers of motor vehicles.
	  Exceptions
	The subject matter of sections 39 and 40 (road safety information and training) and 157 to 159 (payments for treatment of traffic casualties) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	  E2.   Rail transport   Provision and regulation of railway services.
	  Rail transport security.
	  The subject matter of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
	  The subject matter of the Railway Heritage Act 1996.
	  Exceptions
	Grants so far as relating to railway services; but this exception does not apply in relation to
	(a)   the subject matter of section 63 of the Railways Act 1993 (government financial assistance where railway administration orders made),
	(b)   railway services as defined in section 82(1)(b) of the Railways Act 1993 (carriage of goods by railway), or
	(c)   the subject matter of section 136 of the Railways Act 1993 (grants and subsidies).
	  Interpretation
	Railway services has the meaning given by section 82 of the Railways Act 1993 (excluding the wider meaning of railway given by section 81(2) of that Act).
	  E3.   Marine Transport   The subject matter of
	(a)   the Coastguard Act 1925,
	(b)   the Hovercraft Act 1968, except so far as relating to the regulation of noise and vibration caused by hovercraft,
	(c)   the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971,
	(d)   section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (prohibition on approaching dangerous wrecks),
	(e)   the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Act 1982,
	(f)   the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985,
	(g)   the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, other than Part I (aviation security),
	(h)   the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992,
	(i)   the Merchant Shipping Act 1995,
	(j)   the Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Act 1995, and
	(k)   sections 24 (implementation of international agreements relating to protection of wrecks), 26 (piracy) and 27 and 28 (international bodies concerned with maritime matters) of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997.
	  Navigational rights and freedoms.
	  Financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both outside Wales.
	  Exceptions
	Ports, harbours, piers and boatslips, except in relation to the matters reserved by virtue of paragraph (d), (f), (g) or (i).
	  Regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation.
	  E4.   Air Transport   Regulation of aviation and air transport, including the subject matter of
	(a)   the Carriage by Air Act 1961,
	(b)   the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1962,
	(c)   the Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979 so far as relating to carriage by air,
	(d)   the Civil Aviation Act 1982,
	(e)   the Aviation Security Act 1982,
	(f)   the Airports Act 1986, and
	(g)   sections 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes) and 48 (powers in relation to certain aircraft) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990,
	  and arrangements to compensate or repatriate passengers in the event of an air transport operator's insolvency.
	  Exceptions
	The subject matter of the following sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1982
	(a)   section 25 (Secretary of State's power to provide aerodromes),
	(b)   section 30 (provisions of aerodromes and facilities at aerodromes by local authorities),
	(c)   section 31 (power to carry on ancillary business in connection with local authority aerodromes),
	(d)   section 34 (financial assistance for certain aerodromes),
	(e)   section 35 (facilities for consultation for certain aerodromes),
	(f)   section 36 (health control at Secretary of State's aerodromes and aerodromes of Civil Aviation Authority), and
	(g)   sections 41 to 43 and 50 (powers in relation to land exercisable in connection with civil aviation) where land is to be or was acquired for the purpose of airport development or expansion.
	  The subject matter of Part II (transfer of airport undertakings of local authorities), sections 63 and 64 (airport byelaws) and 66 (functions of operators of designated airports as respects abandoned vehicles) of the Airports Act 1986.
	  The subject matter of 59 (acquisitions of land rights over land) and 60 (disposal of compulsory acquired land) of the Airports Act 1986 where land is to be or was acquired for the purpose of airport development or expansion.
	  E5.   Other matters   Transport of radioactive material
	  Technical specifications for public passenger transport for disabled persons, including the subject matter of
	(a)   section 125 (7) and (8) of the Transport Act 2985 (Secretary of State's guidance and consultation withthe Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee), and
	(b)   Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (public transport).
	  Regulation of the carriage of dangerous goods.
	  Interpretation
	Radioactive material has the same meaning as in section 1 (1) of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991.
	Head FSocial Security
	  F1.   Social security schemes   Schemes supported from central or local funds which provide assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals by way of benefits.
	  Requiring persons to
	(a)   establish and administer schemes providing assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals, or,
	(b)   make payments to or in respect of such schemes,
	and to keep records and supply information in connection with such schemes.
	  The circumstances in which a person is liable to maintain himself or another for the purposes of enactments relating to social security and the Child Support Acts 1991 and 1995.
	  The subject matter of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.
	  Illustrations
	National Insurance; Social Fund; administration and funding of housing benefit and council tax benefit; recovery of benefits for accident, injury or disease from persons paying damages; deductions from benefits for the purpose of meeting an individual's debts; sharing information between government departments for the purposes of the enactments relating to social security; making decisions for the purposes of schemes mentioned in the reservation and appeals against such decisions.
	  Interpretation
	Benefits includes pensions, allowances, grants, loans and any other form of financial assistance.
	  Providing assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals includes (among other things) providing assistance to or in respect of individuals
	(a)   who qualify by reason of old age, survivorship, disability, sickness, incapacity, injury, unemployment, maternity or the care of children or others needing care,
	(b)   who qualify by reason of low income, or
	(c)   in relation to their housing costs or liabilities for local taxes.
	  F2.   Child support   The subject matter of the Child Support Acts 1991 and 1995.
	  Interpretation
	If section 30 (2) of the Child Support Act 1991 (collection of payments other than child support maintenance) is not in force on the principal appointed day, it is to be treated for the purposes of this reservation as if it were.
	  F3.   Occupational and personal pensions The regulation of occupational pension schemes and personal pension schemes, including the obligations of the trustees or managers of such schemes.
	  Provision about pensions payable to, or in respect of, any persons, except
	(a)   the persons referred to in section 81 (3),
	(b)   in relation to a Welsh public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions, persons who are or have been a member of the public body, the holder of the public office or a member of the staff of the body, holder or office.
	  The subject matter of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
	  Schemes for the payment of pensions which are listed in Schedule 2 to the Act, except those mentioned in paragraphs 38A and 38AB.
	  Where pensions payable to or in respect of any class of persons under a public service pension scheme is covered by this reservation, so is making provision in their case
	(a)   for compensation for loss of office or employment, for their office or employment being affected by constitutional changes, or circumstances arising from such changes, in any territory, territories or for loss or diminution of emoluments, or
	(b)   for benefits in respect of death or incapacity resulting from injury or disease.
	  Interpretation
	Pension includes gratuities and allowances.
	  F4.   War pensions Schemes for the payment of pensions for or in respect of persons who have a disablement or have died in consequence of service as members of the armed forces of the Crown.
	  The subject matter of any scheme under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939, sections 3 to 5 and 7 of the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or section 1 of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.
	  Illustration
	The provisions of pensions under the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983.
	  Interpretation
	Pension includes grants, allowances, supplements and gratuities.
	Head GRegulation of the Professions
	  G1.   Architects The regulation of the profession of architect.
	  G2.   Health professions Regulation of the health professions.
	  Interpretation
	The health professions means the professions regulated by
	(a)   the Pharmacy Act 1954,
	(b)   the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960,
	(c)   the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966,
	(d)   the Medical Act 1983,
	(e)   the Dentists Act 1984,
	(f)   the Opticians Act 1989.
	(g)   the Osteopaths Act 1993,
	(h)   the Chiropractors Act 1994, and
	(i)   the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997.
	  G3 .   Auditors Regulation of the profession of auditor.
	Head HEmployment
	  H1.   Employment and industrial relations Employment rights and duties and industrial relations, including the subject matter of
	(a)   the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969,
	(b)   the Employment Agencies Act 1973,
	(c)   the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979,
	(d)   the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981,
	(e)   the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,
	(f)   the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996,
	(g)   the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
	(h)   the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949.
	  H2.   Health and Safety The subject matter of the following Parts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
	(a)   Part I (health, safety and welfare in connection with work, and control of dangerous substances) as extended or applied by section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, sections 1 and 2 of the Offshore Safety Act 1992 and section 117 of the Railways Act 1993, and
	(b)   Part II (the Employment Medical Advisory Service).
	  Exception
	Public safety in relation to matters which are not reserved.
	  H3 .   Job search and support The subject matter of
	(a)   the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, and
	(b)   the Employment and Training Act 1973, except so far as relating to training for employment.
	  Exception
	The subject matter of
	(a)   sections 8 to 10A of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (careers services), and
	(i)   section 2 (3) (c) (arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons); and
	(ii)   section 12 (disclosure of information).
	Head JHealth and Medicines
	  J1.   Abortion Abortion.
	  J2.   Xenotransplantation Xenotransplantation.
	  J3.   Embryology, surrogacy and genetics Surrogacy arrangements, within the meaning of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, including the subject matter of that Act.
	  The subject matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Human genetics.
	  J4.   Medicines, medical supplies and poisons The subject matter of
	(a)   the Medicines Act 1968, the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 and the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994,
	(b)   the Poisons Act 1972, and
	(c)   the Biological Standards Act 1975.
	  Medicinal products has the same meaning as in section 130 (1) of the Medicines Act 1968.
	  J5.   Welfare foods Schemes made by regulations under section 13 of the Social Security Act 1988 (schemes for distribution of welfare foods).
	Head KMedia and Culture
	  K1.   Broadcasting The subject matter of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996.
	  The British Broadcasting Corporation.
	  Exception
	Broadcasting in the medium of Welsh.
	  K2. Public lending right The subject matter of the Public Lending Right Act 1979.
	  K3.   Government Indemnity Scheme The subject matter of sections 16 and 16A of the National Heritage Act 1980 (public indemnities for objects on loan to museums, art galleries, etc.).
	  K4. Property accepted in satisfaction of tax The subject matter of sections 8 and 9 of the National Heritage Act 1980 (payments to Inland Revenue in respect of property accepted in satisfaction of tax, and disposal of such property).
	Head LMiscellaneous
	  L1.   Judicial remuneration
	  L2.   Equal opportunities   Equal opportunities, including the subject matter of
	(a)   the Equal Pay Act 1970,
	(b)   the Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
	(c)   the Race Relations Act 1976, and
	(d)   the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
	Exceptions
	The encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements.
	Interpretation
	Equal opportunities means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions.
	Equal opportunity requirements means the requirements of the law for the time being relating to equal opportunities.
	  L3.   Control of Weapons   Control of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
	  L4.   Ordnance survey   The subject matter of the Ordnance Survey Act 1841.
	  L5.   TimeTimescales, time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972.
	  The calendar; units of time; the date of Easter.
	Exceptions
	The computation of periods of time.
	The subject-matter of
	(a)   section 1 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (bank holidays), and
	(b)   the Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Act 1990.
	  L6.   Outer space Regulation of activities in outer space.
	PART 3
	GENERAL PROVISIONS
	Welsh public authorities
	1   (1)   This Schedule does not reserve any Welsh public authority if some of its functions relate to reserved matters and some do not, unless it is a cross-border public authority.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1) has effect as regards
	(a)   the constitution of the authority, including its establishment and dissolution, its assets and liabilities and its funding and receipts,
	(b)   conferring or removing any functions specifically exercisable in relation to the authority.
	(3)   Sub-paragraph (2)(b) does not apply to any function which is specifically exercisable in relation to a particular function of the authority if the particular function relates to reserved matters.
	(4)   An authority to which this paragraph applies is referred to in this Act as a Scottish public authority with mixed functions.
	2  Paragraph 1 of Part I of this Schedule does not reserve any Welsh public authority with functions none of which relate to reserved matters (referred to in this Act as a Welsh public authority with no reserved functions).
	Reserved bodies
	3   (1)   The reservation of any body to which this paragraph applies has effect to reserve
	(a)   its constitution, including its establishment and dissolution, its assets and liabilities and its funding and receipts,
	(b)   conferring functions on it or removing functions from it,
	(c)   conferring or removing any functions specifically exercisable in relation to it.
	(2)   This paragraph applies to
	(a)   a body reserved by name by Part 2 of this Schedule,
	(b)   each of the councils reserved by section C12 of that Part,
	(c)   the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Disability Council.
	Financial assistance to industry
	4   (1)   This Schedule does not reserve giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purposes of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment.
	(2)   Sub-paragraph (1)
	(a)   does not apply to giving financial assistance to any activities in pursuance of a power exercisable only in relation to activities which are reserved,
	(b)   does not apply to Part 1 of this Schedule, except paragraph 9, or to a body to which paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule applies,
	(c)   is without prejudice to the exceptions from the reservations in sections E2 and E3 of Part 2 of this Schedule.
	(3)   Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the question whether any matter other than financial assistance to which that sub-paragraph applies is reserved.
	Interpretation
	5   (1)   References in this Schedule to the subject matter of any enactment are to be read as references to the subject matter of that enactment as it has effect on the principal appointed day or, if it ceased to have effect at any time within the period ending with that day and beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, as it had effect immediately before that time.
	(2)   Subordinate legislation under section 129(1) may, in relation to the operation of this Schedule at any time before the principal appointed day, modify the references to that day in sub-paragraph (1).'.

Roger Williams: The purpose of the amendment and the new schedule is to redefine the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, as an alternative to how that will be achieved by clause 93 and schedule 5. Clause 93 sets out the extent of the Assembly's powers to make Measures. It provides that the legislative competence of the Assembly can be altered by an Order in Council, thereby amending a matter in a field of schedule 5. However, subsection (2) of clause 93 states that if an Assembly Measure makes a provision outside the Assembly's legislative competence, it has no legal effect. Similarly, subsection (2) of clause 94 states that a field cannot be added to schedule 5 if it is one in which no functions are exercisable by Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General.
	In our opinion, that will limit the vital primary powers that we want, and that Scotland has already, over policing, administration of justice in magistrates courts and the Prison Service. Clause 93 and schedule 5 give the Assembly no powers over those important issues. Following the consultation on the future of police authorities in Wales, it was obvious that it was vital for the Assembly to have extra powers over the police. The consultation process was an absolute sham, because after three weeks we were told by the Secretary of State that there was only one optiona single police authority.

Adam Price: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's objective, but the amendment has simply been cut and pasted from the Scotland Act 1998. New schedule 1, for example, refers to the High Court of Justiciary, which is unique to Scotland, and to the Court of Session. It also mentions several orders that apply only to Scotland, such as one on bankruptcy.

Roger Williams: I must come clean about that. When I discussed the new schedule, I intended to enter a mea culpa on that point. I was responsible for part of the new schedule, but not for all of itespecially the mistakes. [Laughter.] The reference to the courts of the Scottish legislative system should have been replaced by one to the highest courts for criminal and civil law in England and Wales. He may pick up one or two other errors. Because of the mistakes, I shall not press the amendment to a Division.
	I wish to press the Minister on why he has set out the legislative competencies of the Assembly differently from how it was done for Scotland. Why has he set up the complicated system of fields in schedule 5, with further definitions in schedule 7? It would be much better to rule out those areas over which the Assembly has no competence. I know that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) has been very concerned about that ad hoc method of adding primary legislative competencies to the Assembly. I would think that our proposal, as outlined in the new schedule, would give him more confidence that no additional powers could be devolved to the Assembly without a decision by this place.

David Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, before any such transfer of powers took place, the Welsh people would be consulted in a referendum?

Roger Williams: No, because as a party we have always made it clear that we believe in transferring primary powers to the Assembly. It was set up to improve the government of Wales and following a referendum that made it clear that secondary legislative powers would be given to the Assembly. However, it has become obvious to many, including to Nick Bourne, the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, that the present system is not working. To ask a body such as the Welsh Assembly to deliver services, including health and education, without having the necessary primary legislative powers is to put it in a position where it will fail to perform. Because it is failing to perform, it is losing the confidence of the Welsh people, and something needs to be done. Those people who value the future of Wales and of the Assembly are looking for ways in which to improve it and give the people of Wales more confidence that it has all the powers necessary to deliver first class services.

Philip Hollobone: For those of us who do not have the privilege of representing a Welsh constituency, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that the Assembly should have powers over the police? Is he saying that those powers should be enshrined in the Bill or that the issue should be decided at a later date?

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know of his interest in Welsh affairs, because his name often appears on the Order Paper for Welsh questions. Yes, we are suggesting that the Assembly should have power over the police, and it has been suggested for some time that it should have the power to determine the finances of the police authorities. Indeed, chief constables support that view. We believe that the police would function best if they were under the control of the Assembly. That is our policy.
	Why should Wales have a different system from Scotland? Is that because, unlike Scotland, we are subject to a second-class system? Would it not be much better and much clearer for people such as myself who support the United Kingdom, who want to stay within the United Kingdom and who want Wales to play an important part in the United Kingdom, to have every assurance that the Welsh Assembly has the competence to legislate on the reserve matters as set out in new schedule 1 and that Wales will remain in the United Kingdom but with all the powers necessary to deliver first-class services for the people of Wales?

Nick Ainger: I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that Members wish to debate other amendments tonight.
	The hon. Gentleman made the case for giving the Assembly powers over the police and police authorities. As a point of principle, this Bill does not broaden devolution. That is not its purpose. It is here to deepen devolution. The issue of the police does not appear and I assure him that any further amendments looking to extend the areas over which the Assembly has Executive powers and legislative competence will not be considered.
	The hon. Gentleman asks why schedule 5 is set out in the way that it is and why the Bill is different from the Scotland Act 1998. In fact, the Bill is set out in the same way as the Scotland Act 1978. There are two ways of defining what an assembly or parliament has competence over. In the 1978 Act, it was decided, as we have decided, to define the areas over which it would be possible for the body to legislate. That is the first method. The other method was adopted in the Scotland Act 1998, which, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) rightly identified, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has done a cut-and-paste job on. I will not say any more about that. The second method defines the areas over which the body does not have competence and cannot legislate.
	A judgment is made based on other issues and relevant factors that would persuade one to choose one method over another. It is clear that we chose one system for Scotland in 1978 and another for Scotland in 1998. The issues are finely balanced. Wales is unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland because, in the other two Administrations, the areas over which they cannot legislate are defined. The other two have their own judicial systems, but the judicial system in Wales is, as we all know, linked to that in England. The jurisdiction is over England and Wales. As more and more legislation goes through, we think that there might be problems and that is one reason for choosing the option that we have.
	The option in the Bill also assists with the system for Orders in Council. The fields are set out in schedule 5 and, when Orders in Council go through, matters will be lodged under each field. That is an easy way to define the process.

David Jones: Of course, clause 94 provides that additional fields may be added to schedule 5. Has any thought been given to extending the number of fields and might they be extended to include policing in the future?

Nick Ainger: I can give the hon. Gentleman the straight answer that there are no such plans at present. As I said to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), we do not see the Bill as a way of extending the responsibilities of the Assembly.
	As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said, the Scotland Act 1998 refers to the courts. Clearly, we would require a large document not only to set out what was not devolved to the Assembly, but to take account of all the courts and judicial areas, including the Prison Servicethe list would go on and on. It is far clearer for someone who is not versed in the intricacies of our constitution for us to set out in schedule 5 the exact areas on which the Assembly can legislate, rather than to produce a list of the things that it cannot do. A judgment must be made. For the reasons that I have given, we think that the approach represents a sensible way forward, principally because we are an England and Wales jurisdiction, so the situation is different from that in Northern Ireland and Scotland. When the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire considers the reasons that I have set out, their link with the Order-in-Council process and the way in which matters can be added so that the Assembly can take forward its Assembly Measures, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams: I was interested to hear the reasons why the Government have chosen to define the legislative competence of the Assembly in such a way. It will take some time to think them through because they had not been made apparent to us before today. I think that it is more definitive to set out matters on which the Assembly cannot legislate than to have a list of matters on which it can legislate that, I believe, would grow and grow. However, given that the Minister set out new reasons why the Government have adopted their approach, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 50, line 31, leave out from '(4)' to 'or' in line 32.
	Amendment No. 163 is a probing amendment. I am intrigued to understand exactly how the clause is designed to work and what the consequence of accepting the amendment would be. There is provision to allow Assembly Measures to be extended so that they cover consequential areas. Clause 93(5)(a) makes it clear that, in such circumstances, there must be the power to enforce the provision. However, the paragraph also refers to making the provision effective. Quite simply, I wish to know from the Minister what that would entail. He will be aware that there is concern about whether it would be possible to extend such legislation to England, although I am mindful of the clear wording in an earlier subsection. I simply ask for reassurance about why the specific form of words has been chosen.

Nick Ainger: The term effective in this provision relates to the substance of a particular Assembly Measure. I realise that this is a probing amendment, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the other two conditions are straightforward, so that the legislation can be enforced in the courts, and that a Measure could be purely incidental or consequential. However, it is not always clear whether an amendment is purely consequential or incidental.
	Let us take the example of an Assembly Measure that replaced the current system of listing buildings with a system of historic buildings or heritage buildings. When work is done on such buildings, or materials are bought for them, under the current system, that is zero-rated. If the Assembly wanted to change the listing system and call it heritage buildings, or whatever, a consequential amendment to value added tax legislation would be needed.
	There could be a debate whether that would be a purely consequential amendment. If the buildings were reclassified as heritage buildings, we would certainly think the Assembly Measure defective if it changed their position with regard to VAT. That is why we are using the term effective. Clearly it is very constrained, but I hope that my brief comments will reassure the hon. Gentleman of the need to include that word, and he will withdraw his amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 93, page 51, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
	This is another probing amendment. I seek some guidance from the Minister about how subsection (7) should be interpreted. I have seen such subsections before, so it is not completely novel, but what would the circumstances be to which one would have to have regard in deciding whether an Assembly Measure fell within one of the areas specified in part 1 of schedule 5? That matters rather more in the context of Assembly Measures, as the Minister will understand, because if that were not the case, the Assembly would be acting outside its powers. It would be useful for the House to understand what the criteria are. If this is too complicated for the Minister to explain now from the Dispatch Box, a letter at a later stage would probably satisfy me.

Nick Ainger: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As he says, there is nothing unusual about this. It is designed to help resolve any doubts about whether a particular provision in an Assembly Measure is within the Assembly's legislative competence. If a question arises as to whether a provision in a Measure relates to a matter in schedule 5, the question is to be decided by considering the purpose of the Assembly Measure. My brief suggests that at this point I use the terms the pith and substance and the true nature and character of the provision.
	Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an example. We will soon be debating the Health Bill, which deals with, among many other things, a ban on smoking in public places. Within that Bill there are provisions to give the Assembly secondary legislation powers. Some may argue that that is a licensing issue rather than a health issue, but the purpose of the regulations that will ban smoking in public places is clearly health-related. I hope that that illustration helps the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister's example was a very good one, absolutely on point and has clarified the matter completely. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5
	  
	Assembly Measures

Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 108, line 30, at end insert
	'Field 5A: energy'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 109, line 39, at end insert
	'Field 13A: police, probation, and prison service'.

Adam Price: If my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) appears in a second, he may want to say a few words about amendment No. 25, which is more his area of competence, although sadly at the moment not that of the National Assembly.
	On the Under-Secretary's suggestion, I will be pithy. Energy is topical at the moment with the publication today of the Government's consultation paper and the energy review. As energy provision is such a vital function and a secure, diverse and sustainable supply is so important, the issue is clearly of vast interest across the nations, but there are particular interests and the nature of energy differs across the United Kingdom. Energy has of course played a very important part in the history of Wales; we have certainly produced enough of it for the rest of the UK over a couple of centuries at least. It remains a key political issue in Wales for a variety of reasons.
	However, there is an anomaly. Although energy remains a reserved matter, even under the Scotland Act, elements of it have been devolved and will be under the proposals in this Bill for Wales. Energy efficiency, for instance, is a devolved matter provided that it does not involve regulation or prohibition, as is energy conservation, and so on. Some elements of renewable energy are devolved and will continue to be so under the Bill. However, where there is interconnection, therein lies a problem.
	At the moment, projects under 50 MW onshore are devolved to the National Assembly, whereas projects bigger than that remain a reserved matter in the Department of Trade and Industry. We argue that that is not acceptable. If we are to have a comprehensive energy policy for Wales, we must have greater devolution of power. That is why we seek through this amendment to introduce a new field for energy, which will allow the National Assembly, following the enactment of this Bill, to propose Orders in Council, extending some of its competence in energy.
	Offshore developments are another area of increasing interest. There is an interesting feasibility study about possible tidal developments in Swansea bay and other coastal areas of Wales. Currently, and following the enactment of the Bill, such developments remain an exclusive power of the DTI. The Assembly should be enabled to propose an Order in Council to allow it greater control over such areas.
	Moving to the more contentious issue of nuclear power, the National Assembly for Wales should decide whether Wales sees the building of a nuclear power station. We have heard the Secretary of State for Wales express the view that he does not believe that Wales should go down the nuclear route, and similar statements have been made by the Minister for Economic Development and Transport who has responsibility for energy in the National Assembly. There is consensus among three, if not four, of the political partiesand, who knows, some of the independents as wellon the fact that we do not want Wales to go down such a route, but currently and under the Bill the National Assembly does not have the power to reject the imposition of a new nuclear power station, whether in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire or any other part of Wales.
	Surely that cannot be right. The Scottish Executive have the power under the Electricity Act 1989 to award or to reject power station consents. All we are asking in the amendment is that the National Assembly have the right to propose an Order in Council giving itself the same power as the Executives in Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland have.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are serious about having a genuine debate on nuclear power with the country, they should not be afraid to give the Welsh Assembly that authority? After all, it would be utterly undemocratic to force a nuclear power station on a community that clearly would resist such an application.

Adam Price: I entirely agree. When the Government publish the results of the consultation, it will be interesting to see whether there are different responses in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. It is a matter for England if England wants to go down the nuclear route, but I suspect that the response in Wales will be negative. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales says, Wales should have right to decide its own future, because we shall be binding future generations.
	I could go on to talk at length about other energy issues, but I am conscious of time. However, I should like to mention the energy corridor between the liquid natural gas terminals, which are themselves contentious, as the Under-Secretary knows. The proposed route of the pipeline goes through my constituency. That matter, too, is reserved; it is dealt with by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although it cuts across planning and energy policy. Surely greater responsibility should be given to the National Assembly to enable it to produce a comprehensive energy policy that the people of Wales support.

David Mundell: I welcome the amendments, even though I do not propose to support them. I welcome them because they allow me to tell the Minister that it is perfectly possible to support devolution and the evolution of devolution without supporting every measure that is proposed. During the course of today's proceedings, we have heard ridiculous attempts to rubbish the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to devolution, not only in Wales but in Scotland.
	The Opposition understand that what we have now is asymmetric devolution, which means that not every provision of the Scotland Act will be replicated for Wales. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) on the way in which energy provisions are working in Scotland. I have great concerns that nationalist elements in particular wish to use the difference between the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and the powers that the UK Parliament has to create a constitutional block and, if possible, crisis by presenting differences on energy policy. If the UK Government's policy is to have nuclear power in the UK, it is not for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, using provisions relating to other matters, to attempt to block the Government's energy policy. All such attempts to distort the devolution settlements should be resisted.

Lembit �pik: Why would the hon. Gentleman resist the opportunity to give local communities some say over whether they have to put up with a nuclear power station which, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) rightly pointed out, is an investment not for a generation, but for centuries?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is expressing his political views in respect of the nuclear industry, but in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom where nuclear power stations exist, many communities would welcome a new development. It is a misuse of constitutional powers to block UK Government policy in that regard.
	Earlier, the Minister dealt with the powers relating to the police force and the England and Wales jurisdiction. From my brief experience of Wales questions, it is clear that many colleagues favour closer links between police forces in the north of Wales particularly and in parts of England. Measures that restrict such a possibility should be resisted. We shall therefore oppose the amendments.

Roger Williams: I support both amendments moved by Plaid Cymru Members. It would be our intention to include within the competence of the Assembly control over the police service in Wales. We will therefore support amendment No. 25.
	We also support amendment No. 26, which would include energy in the Assembly's fields of legislative competence. We are conscious that Wales has been asked by the UK Government to bear a bigger burden of renewable energy generation than some parts of England. Targets have been set for Wales that have not had the support of the Welsh people and were not subject to the consultation necessary to ensure that they were well received.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) pointed out that planning permission for power stations generating more than 50 MW is still a reserved matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. We know that that produced a serious problem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) in the case of Cefn Croes. That could have been handled better if the Assembly had had direct powers to deal with it. The difficulty arose because there was a misunderstanding about what representations could be made to the Department of Trade and Industry about the determination of that planning application.

David Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest, therefore, that the Scarweather Sands application was sensitively handled by the Assembly?

Roger Williams: I know the application to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not have as much detailed information about that as he has, so I would not like to comment. The reservation of certain energy matters to the Department of Trade and Industry was intended to cover nuclear applications. As the capacity of renewable power stations has increased, wind farms, which were not thought to be caught by it, have been caught by it.
	We support the inclusion of both energy and police matters in the fields of competence of the Assembly. I hope the Minister will take that on board.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to speak to amendment No. 25, which seeks to extend the field of competence of the National Assembly by including the policing, probation and prison services within the purview of its powers. Senior police officers in all four police forces in Wales have been saying for some time that the time has come for a move towards the devolution of policing. That feeling has been exacerbated of late by the somewhat insensitive way in which the Home Secretary is seeking to impose an all-Wales force in place of the four that we have at present.
	We are proud of our police forces in Wales, and all four are in the upper quartile of each league table in which they appear. They were also recently given an excellent clean bill of health by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and therefore have every reason to say that they are happy with their lot, and with the status quo. They believe that the only way of maintaining that is to devolve policing to the National Assembly, with which would come the probation service and the Prison Service. Both the National Association of Probation Officers in Wales and the Prison Service have expressed warm views about the path towards further devolution, and the way in which they see their future. We believe that they should be taken together as a package, as it were. That impetus has been given extra power by the fact that the National Offender Management Service is now being considered by the Government. This would effectively bring privatisation into the probation service and the Prison Service.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the National Offender Management Service has been handled has been disgraceful? We have been promised legislation, and legislation has been introduced and then withdrawn. We are still waiting for that legislation. Rumour has it that no NOMS legislation will now come forward, and that instead a small part of a mixed Home Office Bill will be allocated to the proposals. However, this would have the same effect of bringing in contestability through the back door without consulting the very people who work in the service.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady and I have both taken a close interest in the NOMS fiasco. One of the worst aspects of it is that there has been no consultation whatever with those on the front line in the probation service or the Prison Service. Anyone who knows anything about those services knows that they are like chalk and cheese; they are incompatible. Even though they are both part of a wider service, they are not compatible with each other. One is there to befriend and to bring people back out into the wider community; the other is about incarceration, which involves elements of retribution as well as of education. These issues worry the people who work in those services in Wales and if NAPO and the Prison Service were to conduct an opinion poll or take a vote on the matter, people would say overwhelmingly that their future would lie better in Cardiff than with the Home Office.
	I am grateful for this opportunity to make those points, and I hope that the Minister will give a reasoned response to the amendments.

Chris Bryant: I hope that I shall be in order, Sir Alan, if I talk about schedule 5, even though I shall not refer to the two amendments

The Chairman: Order. No, the hon. Gentleman would not be in order if he were to do that at this particular juncture.

Nick Ainger: I am going to disappoint hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, because I am going to give a technical response to the amendments rather than engaging with the pointsalthough they have been well madeabout whether the powers should be devolved to the Assembly, and with the reasons why hon. Members think that that should be the case. I shall explain the process as I go along, and perhaps hon. Members will then understand the position.
	As I made clear earlier, this Bill is not about broadening the terms of devolution but deepening it. The two amendments would broaden devolution into areas such as energy, police and the probation and Prison Service, with which the Assembly does not currently have the Executive functions to deal. That goes against the basic premise for the way in which we have established the fields in schedule 5. Those fields, as they are set out, are exclusively those areas in which the Assembly currently has Executive functions. The proposals for which hon. Members have arguedthat energy, police and so on should be includedwould contradict the premise that the only matters that appear in schedule 5 are those in which the Assembly has an Executive function.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes the point that there is no extension to new areas, but schedule 5 is materially affected by schedule 7, which limits each of the different fields in schedule 5. He might note that under culture, which is in field three, there would be an exception, whereby the Assembly would not have powers, for broadcasting. There would also be an exception for telecommunications. He might know, however, that cable television does not fall into either of those two categories. Will he make sure that that is not also an exception?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will not respond to that intervention at this juncture, as we are debating energy, police and the probation and Prison Service.

Nick Ainger: The best way to deal with that intervention, Sir Alan, is to write to my hon. Friend, because the matter is complex and relates to telegraphy, wireless and goodness knows what. If he is patient, I will respond to that point and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
	As I was explaining, schedule 5 includes only those matters in which Assembly Ministers will have Executive functions. By accepting the amendment I would go against the whole premise of how schedule 5 is set out. Hon. Members will accept that only giving powers to legislate in areas where Ministers would have Executive powers is common sense. It would be nonsense to give them powers to legislate in areas where they do not have any Executive powers.
	Under clause 58, further Executive functions may be transferred to Welsh Ministers. If at some point in future the Welsh Assembly Government assume Executive functions in a new field, it will be possible for schedule 5 to be amended to add that. The Bill is not intended to alter the boundaries of the current devolution settlement. It changes the structures and mechanisms, but the appropriate means of transferring new responsibilities in new fields from UK Ministers to the Welsh Assembly Government is either an Act of Parliament or an Order in Council. Under clause 58, that could include a transfer of functions order. In those circumstances, schedule 5 could be updated to enable legislative competence in respect of that field to be conferred on the Assembly. However, it should be for Parliament to agree at the time whether those responsibilities are such that it would be appropriate to enable the Assembly to acquire legislative competence in that field, too.

Roger Williams: On a number of occasions the Minister has prayed in aid his party's manifesto, which stated that a Labour Government would give the Assembly enhanced legislative powers. It seems to me that a good enhancement would involve the police and energy.

Nick Ainger: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand my point about what constitutes broadening and what constitutes deepening. I believe that enhancing means deepening, not widening. Let me repeat that we do not see the Bill as a vehicle for giving the Assembly further, wider powers, other than those listed in schedule 5.
	Members may argue that adding the new fields would not affect the current settlement because an Order in Council would still be needed to confer the competence. It is, however, important for schedule 5 to give an accurate picture of the fields in relation to which the Assembly could acquire legislative competence at any one time. The schedule would give a misleading impression if it appeared to suggest that the UK Government might agree to grant the Assembly legislative competence over areas that remain predominantly the responsibility of UK Ministers. Given that explanation of how the process works, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Adam Price: The Minister let the cat out of the bag by saying that he would give the technical response. It was almost a theological response, and I did not quite follow it. The Minister seemed to be saying that Parliament might have an opportunity to consider adding new fields in the future, but that that was not possible today. I did not understand why it would not be possible today, if the Committee were so minded.
	A number of us have said that on issues such as nuclear powerthat is just one exampleWales should decide. That is the central principle of democratic devolution. When there is a range of views across the nations in these islands, surely the national representative institution of the Welsh people should decide on Welsh energy policy. The same principle applies across the nations. Scotland currently has more powers than we do. Here is an opportunity for us to have parity of power.

Nick Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but this is a devolution issue. Surely the Assembly itself should ask for the powers that he suggests it should have. It has not done so, and in effect the hon. Gentleman is suggesting the imposition on the Assembly of something that it has not requested.

Adam Price: Can the Minister give me an example of an occasion on which, in plenary session, the Assembly has voted against

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that.

Adam Price: I cannot prove a negative either, but I should be interested to see the evidence. I suspect that there is consensus across the political parties representing the Assembly against the imposition of a nuclear power station on Wales, but unfortunately, unless the amendment is passed, those representatives will not be able to ask for the power that exists in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which would allow them to decide on that crucial issue. We therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 391.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 94
	  
	Amendment of Schedule 5

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 51, line 9, leave out
	'to add a new field or'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 167, in page 51, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

Cheryl Gillan: These amendments are really probing amendments in respect of amendment of schedule 5, scrutiny of which has just been completed. In truth, I have tabled them to explore the extent of the legislative competency envisaged for the Assembly Measures and to invite the Minister fully to explain the scope for extending the Assembly's powers, using the fields outlined in schedule 5.
	As I understand it, the legislative competence orders as described by the Minister in his explanatory letter of 17 January would add a matter to schedule 5. However, the schedule, which contains 20 fields, is an imprecise document. The Government chose to go into detail in field 13, on the National Assembly for Wales. For example, it contains matter 13.1, on the creation and conferral of functions, matter 13.2, which deals with similar provisions, and matters 13.3 to 13.6. However, the other fields have been left completely blank, as the Minister knows. That is tantalising, is it not? The moment one leaves such fields blank, the curiosity of the average politician is understandably aroused.
	The examples that the Minister so obligingly sent us, to show how this provision would function, included that of the public services ombudsman and one relating to transport. He said that the Assembly would not have been able to pass measures relating to such matters before enactment of this legislation. That sets aside the fact that we already have primary legislation on these two examples, but that should not cloud the issue. I believe that the Minister chose themI hope that he can confirm thisbecause they happened to be before the House. So in a sense this is a red herringthese are simply the examples that he has used. He did say that they are based on cases where the Assembly could not have legislated within its existing powers.
	It would appear that there will be no check or balance if the Bill goes through. Field 10, for example, covers all highways and transport matters, and field 14 is headed public administration, and those would, presumably, cover the other field for the example that the Minister gave. Those two fields would be prayed in aid for the two measures.
	I gather from the Library that the addition of those two areas over and above the devolved subjects in schedule 2 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the subsequent amendments made by S.I. 1999/672, S.I 2000/253, S.I. 2000/1289, S.I. 2000/1830, S.I. 2001/3679 and S.I. 2004/3004 enhances the competencies of the Assembly above what was previous envisaged. Some of that is laid out in devolution guidance note 11, but I think I am correct in saying that that has not been fully updated.
	Some obvious changes derive from some of those statutory instruments. We have mentioned fire and rescue services, and there is the addition of rural development. Other areas are transportfield 10public administration, and field 15, which is on social welfare. That, I think, is supposed to be equivalent to what used to be called social services. Social welfare draws the category much wider. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us the history of the variations and outlined the reasons for the extensions and variations to the powers of the Assembly. I appreciate that some will be introduced functions.

Philip Hollobone: I should like to underline the point that my hon. Friend is making. Is there not a worrying inconsistency in part 1 of schedule 5, where there is one line of text for most services, but some 40 lines for the Assembly powers? Does not that give the Executive of the Westminster Parliament huge flexibility, and therefore inordinate power, to determine at a later date, beyond the scrutiny of this Parliament, what powers are given to the Assembly?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way, and I shall make it in my way a bit later on. It is arguable that the way in which the Bill has been drawn is so wide that it could be wider than schedule 7, which limits and provides the exceptions. It is an extremely valid point.
	Transfers of functions orders have already been brought in in respect of various matters, such as court cases involving subordinate legislation, local land charges, inheritance tax and a right to be party to proceedings on compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1988. Will the Minister outline under which fields those matters, for example, could be covered? That is extremely important. I need to feel that the Minister has fully explained to the House how widely the fields are drawn. Let me give an example. Under economic development, it could be argued that it might be possible for the Assembly to promote the development of nuclear power in Wales, and thus support a new nuclear power station at Wylfa B. As we heard as we debated the last set of amendments, there is great concern about that in Wales. Perhaps there is a way to claim field 4 as the encompassing field for discussing, promoting or moving those matters forward. It would be of interest to know whether that could or could not be.
	Under social welfare, could the Assembly add the provision of social security benefits or employment programmes aimed at all unemployed people? Could it add child support or pension regulation, all of which currently remain wholly the responsibility of the UK Government? Are the headings a pointer to the direction that the Government wish to take, in which case could the Minister enlighten us further? Or do the Government seek to maintain the status quo in these fields, in which case, could they be filled in? If they are not filled inas schedule 7 has been completed in detail to cover the situation in which full legislative powers are devolvedit could be argued that schedule 5 could be interpreted to cover a wider remit than schedule 7. The Minister should clarify that very generally drawn schedule, because otherwise it might not find favour in this Committee or in the other place.

David Jones: Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that the Minister has repeatedly said this evening that it is the Government's intention not to broaden but to deepen the devolution settlement, but it would be possible for the Government to add any number of fields to those already contained in schedule 5, subject of course to the limitations in schedule 7? My concern is that it may be possible at some later stage for a large number of additional fields that are not currently the subject of the devolution settlement to be added.

Cheryl Gillan: It is for the Minister to answer that point and set our minds at rest, or to come clean about the Government's intentions. When we see a provision drawn so widely, it sets the alarm bells ringing on what the Father of the House called creeping devolution. It could become a reality.
	This is a difficult area, but as I understand it the devolved subjects that were listed in schedule 2 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 are not repeated exactly in this Bill. They have been supplemented and slightly changed. I would like to hear from the Minister his views on the breadth of those fields. If he is intent on deepening rather than widening, perhaps he will allay our fears that the Bill will widen the devolution settlement by including headings as broad as social welfare.

Nick Ainger: If I begin by explaining how schedule 5 is set out, it may assist the hon. Lady to understand how the process works. The fields that are set out are those areas in which Executive functions have been given to the Assembly and, following the split that will be introduced by the enactment of this Bill, to Assembly Ministers. They are the fields of Executive competence.
	The hon. Lady mentions field 13, which is purely about the National Assembly for Wales. In order for the Assembly to be able to carry out its functions, pay its staff and so on, we had to set out in the Bill the matters on which it may legislate if required at as early an opportunity as possible. For all the other fields listed with nothing underneath them, it will be for the process of Orders in Council to determine.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the two examples that I placed in the Librarylegislation on the public administration ombudsman and transport in Wales. If we had not gone for the primary route, that is how an Order in Council would have looked. The transport legislation would have fitted under the field. I do not know which one it is

Cheryl Gillan: Field 10.

Nick Ainger: Yes, field 10 is on highways and transport. The matter would come under field 10 and still have the heading highways and transport. The matter, as defined in the Order in Council, would sit underneath that heading.
	Some of the confusion may arise from the way in which the Bill is set out. There is a series of headings: Schedule 5, Assembly Measures, Part 1 and Matters, but that is then followed by the list of fields. That may have caused a little confusion. I hope the hon. Lady now understands the process.
	I now come to the question of how more fields can be added. The hon. Lady is right to suggest that additional fields of Executive functions have been added since the 1998 Act. That has been done by a combination of primary legislationfor example, the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 transferred the Executive functions for the fire brigades in Wales to the Assemblyand the transfer of functions orders, the most obvious example being that for animal health. We envisage that those processes will continue. If agreement was reached between the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government that additional competence should be given to the Assembly, those are the procedures that would be used.

Cheryl Gillan: Can the Minister tell me where the provision for rural development came from in field 1? I gather that the old grouping was agriculture, forestry, fisheries and foods.

Nick Ainger: That is a good question. I cannot give an answer off the top of my head, but I lived next door to the Assembly Minister responsible for these matters for the first two or three years. I assure the hon. Lady that, from the word go, Christine Gwyther was actively involved in rural development. I am certain that she was acting quite properly in dealing with these matters. However, I will get a detailed response of how that issue has now become an Executive function.

Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind that the Minister lived next door to the other Minister, may I take it that that was joined-up government?

Nick Ainger: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
	I now wish to explain how the Orders in Council would be used to amend schedule 5. If a transfer of functions order transfers Executive power from a UK Minister to a Welsh Assembly Minister, hon. Members may ask why there should not be a requirement to add that field to schedule 5. I do not propose this, but let us bear in mind the earlier debate about energy. If Executive functions were to be transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Assembly Minister responsible for that issueI imagine that it would be Andrew Daviesthe transfer of functions order would clearly set out what was being transferred to the Assembly.
	One might argue that the logic is that the transfer of functions order should also include the order that would also give the power to legislate. However, the Orders in Council give the powers to the Assembly to legislate whereas the transfer of function order is from Minister to Minister. That is why we would still have to have a separate Order in Council giving the Assembly the responsibility to legislate. The Executive function must be transferredthat is the first thing that must happen. That would trigger the field being added and then, in the fullness of time, an Order in Council would set out the legislative transfer.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps I am being stupid on this. Is the Minister telling me that a transfer of functions order relating to the details of each field will be passed following the enactment of the Bill, or will that happen only for subsequent matters? The matters have been widened from those in schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, so I need to know how that widening has happened. If it has happened due to all the statutory instruments that I cited, that is well and good, but that does not appear to be the case. Have amendments been made to broaden the matters and give the fields broader headings? For example, the field of social welfare has been changed from social services.

Nick Ainger: I thought that I had explained the situation earlier, but I shall try to do so again. The bulk of the fields set out in the schedule arose due to the transfer of Executive powers that followed the enactment of the Government of Wales Act 1998. The fields that the hon. Lady cannot find in schedule 2 to the 1998 Act are those that have been transferred since then either by primary legislationI cited the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 earlier, which transferred executive responsibility for the fire brigade to the Assemblyor by transfer of functions orders, such as that on animal welfare. There might well be a question about the wording or descriptions used in the Bill, but Executive functions must have come from the 1998 Act, other primary legislation or a transfer of functions order. They could not have come from anywhere else. The Assembly could not have given itself Executive powers without the approval of Parliament in some form.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is going some way towards explaining the situation. Can he tell me under which of   the fields the functions in respect of inheritance tax fall?

Nick Ainger: No I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Lady to let her know.
	I hope that I have been able to explain the procedure under which a new field would be added. It is clear that it will be for Parliament to decideeither through primary legislation or a transfer of functions orderas has been the case when other Executive responsibilities have been passed to the Assembly. The hon. Lady indicated that amendments Nos. 166 and 167 were probing amendments. I hope that she is happy with, and reassured by, my explanation of how the process will work and new fields will be added, and that she will thus withdraw the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has struggled hard with what is obviously a complicated aspect of the Bill. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I remain confused about how and why several fields have changed. I understand the straightforward result of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, but the inclusion of the category of transport is a little premature, given that the Transport (Wales) Bill has not completed all its parliamentary stages. It is interesting that a provision can appear in a Bill before the necessary legislation has been passed. I still fail to understand how a transfer of functions order has resulted in the functions on social services being broadened to social welfare.
	As I said, it would be a lot easier if there were the same amount of detail in schedule 5 as in schedule 7. In view of the exceptions and the details laid out in schedule 7, it is arguable that this provision draws the powers much more widely. I hope that the Minister will write to me, because I would like to know under which field the functions in respect of inheritance tax fall, and also those in court cases involving subordinate legislation in devolved fields, and the right to be party to proceedings on compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. That would go some way towards explaining a very opaque process, and a very imprecisely drawn part of the Bill.
	I am not entirely satisfied. Although the Minister has struggled valiantly, I feel that he does not really understand the details himselfwhich is hardly surprising. I am grateful that he has gone some way towards explaining the schedule, and I shall withdraw my amendment on the understanding that, having read what he says to meand, I hope, the rest of the Committeein correspondence, I may wish to revisit the matter on Report and Third Reading. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

David Mundell: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 51, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
	With any legislation, it is important that any suggestion that measures can be carried out retrospectively should at least be put to the test, and that we be given an explanation of why such measures are needed. Retrospective legislation is always to be avoided. The example given in the explanatory notes to show why the provision is needed is:
	where there has been a legal challenge to the validity of an Assembly Measure based on doubt as to whether its provisions relate to a relevant matter, an Order in Council may restore legal certainty about the Measure by amending a matter to remove any ambiguity.
	That form of explanation leads us to the view that such uncertainties and ambiguities might arise. It is much better to have rigour within the legislation and to make it clear that such mistakes would not be tolerated by the process. I would therefore like to hear an explanation from the Minister of why the provision is necessary, and in what circumstances he envisages its being used.

Nick Ainger: Referring to paragraph 336 of the explanatory notes, the hon. Gentleman seeks further information and clarification of how the provision would work and why it is necessary. May I give him an example? If an Assembly Measure relating to a matter in part 1 of schedule 5 were enacted, and it later transpired that the matter was not clear and needed amendment, although everybody agreed that the Measure was rightly within the Assembly's legal competence, an Order in Council could amend the wording concerning the matter in part 1 of the schedule to give that clarification. It could also, as far as was necessary, amend the citations in the Assembly Measure to put the whole thing on a clearer basis.
	Parliament would have to approve the Order in Council and the Secretary of State must act compatibly with section 6 of the Human Rights Act. I reassure the House that the power would be used very rarely, and not without careful consideration of the grounds for using it. In the example that I cited, its use is limited to cases in which it had always been intended that the Assembly would be able to legislate by Assembly Measure on the matter concerned, and Parliament would be able to ensure that that was the case through its approval of the Order in Council.

Lembit �pik: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on the specific principled point that, in introducing retrospective legislation, there is a possibility that we will create an environment where individuals fall foul of a law that did not exist in the past. I accept that the Minister is seeking to assure us that the legislation will always be compatible with the Human Rights Act, but how can he reassure us that the spirit of justice will be ensured if we are introducing legislation which goes back to a time when it did not exist?

Nick Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We should all have that concern about retrospective legislation, and that is why in the main we do not go down that road. I referred to the Human Rights Act to cover the issue of justice that he raised. We are talking about very minor detail that perhaps arises some time after the Assembly Measure has been enacted and clarification is needed. That is all that this provision will allow the Assembly to do through the Order in Council process.

Lembit �pik: I appreciate that the Minister is seeking to reassure the Committee, but the difficulty is that we are hearing the reassurance that the provision will be applied only to minor detail from a Minister who is here now, in January 2006. That does not provide any insurance policy whatever against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale that a future politician or group of politicians will use it to effect major upheaval and retrospective revision of legislation. Without labouring the debate, is there any reassurance whatever in the phrasing of the legislation that will prevent the wholesale use of the provision by a less sensitive or less scrupulous Administration?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman must accept from what I have said that this is basically a tidying-up exercise where there is a slight problem with an Assembly Measure. The provision will certainly not be used to change policy or the thrust of an Assembly Measure. It will be used for a minor detail that needs clarification.

Elfyn Llwyd: In which case, if there were a full-blown Human Rights Act challenge and if part of the Measure were struck down, this process would not come into play, would it? That would not be minor in any way.

Nick Ainger: Perhaps I can reassure hon. Members in this way. If in the fullness of time clarification were required, the Order in Council would come back here. There is a protection. The Assembly would not legislate for itself retrospectively; Parliament, through the Order-in-Council process, would give permission for a new Order in Council to rectify the particular problem. That should reassure the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. There would have to be a new Order in Council to bring forward the clarification.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is quite different from retrospection. That is a matter of varying law by bringing it back. Retrospection would go back in time; it does what it says it does. With respect to the Minister, he is not addressing the point of retrospection.

Nick Ainger: I am trying to set out the practical process that would be gone through to ensure, as the hon. Gentleman says, that retrospective changes to the original Assembly Measure are made. For that to happen, there has to be another Order in Council. The issues will be debated here, just as we would discuss an ordinary Order in Council.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale accepts my reassurance that these provisions are likely to be very rarely used. They are for clarification and certainly not because it is envisaged that any new powers would be given to the original Assembly Measure. I hope that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell: I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity, but his responses to the queries raised by other hon. Members have made it clear that he cannot give us the assurances that he has been asked for. As the explanatory notes make clear, the nature of the clause is such that it offers the opportunity simply to reaffirm things that have already been done. That is unsatisfactory. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on the clause and the genuine concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members from a number of parties. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I ask him to understand the seriousness with which we regard the clause and its potential, particularly in changed political circumstances, to cause severe difficulty and to undermine the devolution settlement in Wales. On the understanding that the Minister regards that as a serious and sincerely made point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in page 51, line 26, after 'Assembly', insert
	'in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two thirds of the total number of Assembly seats'.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 154, in page 51, line 28, after 'approved', insert '(i)'.
	Amendment No. 155, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'or
	(ii)   has been laid before each House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but has been rejected by the House of Lords.
	(5A)   If subsection (5)(b)(ii) applies, the Order in Council shall not take affect until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'(5A)   In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in subsection (5)(a), but there not being within 60 days of that approval, an approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament as specified in subsection (5)(b), subsection (5) shall cease to have effect in the case of that draft statutory instrument, and the procedure specified in subsection (5B) will then apply to that draft statutory instrument.
	(5B)   The procedure which will apply in cases specified in subsection (5A) will be that no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council
	(a)   has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly, and
	(b)   the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.'.
	Amendment No. 187, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'(5A)   Any draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under this section must be accompanied by
	(a)   a detailed memorandum setting out the scope of the proposal, its practical effects on Wales and the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly, and
	(b)   a draft of the proposed Assembly Measure.
	(5B)   Before an Order in Council is subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make a motion to refer the draft of the Order in Council, along with the draft Assembly Measure, to the Welsh Grand Committee for consideration.
	(5C)   A report of the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the draft Order in Council and Assembly Measure must have been available to both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than 60 days before any Order in Council is made under this section.'.
	Amendment No. 211, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'(5A)   But subsection (5) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.'.
	Amendment No. 212, in page 51, line 29, at end insert
	'(5A)   But subsection (5) is not satisfied unless, before the draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons
	(a)   the Welsh Grand Committee has debated the draft, and
	(b)   the Welsh Affairs Committee has reported to the effect that it approves the draft.'.
	Amendment No. 122, in page 51, line 38, leave out 'either'.
	Amendment No. 123, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 1 on page 52.
	Amendment No. 181, in page 51, line 39, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 41.
	Amendment No. 53, in page 51, line 40, at beginning insert 'if subsection (7A) applies,'.
	Amendment No. 54, in page 51, line 41, at end insert
	'(7A)   This subsection applies only if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the Assembly Measure made under the order
	(a)   would have an adverse effect no any matter which is not specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5,
	(b)   might have a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England,
	(c)   would have an adverse impact on the law as it applies in England, or
	(d)   would be incompatible with any international obligation or the interests of defence or national security.'.
	New clause 4Refusal to lay draft statutory instrument
	'In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in section 94 (5) (a), followed by a refusal to lay that draft statutory instrument before each House of Parliament, as specified in section 94 (7) (b), the Counsel General or the Assembly may refer to the Supreme Court for decision the question whether the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to lay the draft statutory instrument was made reasonably in the circumstances and intra vires.'.

Dominic Grieve: In an earlier debate we considered the possibility of introducing a system by which this House might have to vote following the passing of Assembly Measures, so that there was a second opportunity to ratify them. As I said to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State, there are other ways of approaching the problem with a view to improving the manner in which scrutiny is conducted. The amendments in this group are designed to achieve that and to provide an opportunity for the House to consider ways to change the process of scrutiny.
	I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 180 and 211, which are designed to achieve roughly the same thing via different wording and different places in the text. I suspect that both would not be required. Their effect would be to ensure that no legislation was initiated by the Order-in-Council process unless the Assembly has resolved that it wishes it to be so initiated by a two-thirds majority. I present the amendments as probing amendments.
	We know that in part 4 the Minister has provided that no initiation of the process of holding a referendum to transfer new legislative power should take place without a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. The Government argue that such a momentous change should occur only if there is a degree of consensus within the Assembly that such a measure should be adopted. However, on several occasions this evening the Minister has said that the difference between that procedure and the procedure set out in part 3 is that in the latter case it is possible to proceed on a case-by-case basis.
	If, for the general principle of a transfer of extra powers, a two thirds majority vote is required of the Assembly, it can certainly be argued that a two thirds majority vote should be required each time the Assembly wishes to proceed on a case by case basis to acquire new powers under the Order-in-Council procedure. Why, in those circumstances, have the Government not considered including such a provision in the Bill? If we want to ensure that the Assembly takes powers only where there is agreement within the Assembly and a consensus in Wales that that should be the case, that would be an adequate safeguard.
	The principal amendment in this group is amendment No. 187, which sets out a formula for better scrutiny of the legislative process. It provides that a draft Order in Council laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a detailed memorandum setting out the scope of the proposal, its practical effects on Wales and the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly, andthis is an important aspecta draft of the proposed Assembly Measure. The amendment spells out the requirement in legislative form.
	Further, before an Order in Council is subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State would have to make a motion to refer the draft of the Order in Council, with the draft Assembly Measure, to the Welsh Grand Committee for consideration, thus ensuring the pre-legislative scrutiny that I think the Minister agrees would be necessary. A report of the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the draft Order in Council and the Assembly Measure must be available to both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than 60 days before any Order in Council is made under this section.
	I accept that one thing that the amendment does not provide forit would be difficult to provide for it in primary legislationis the possibility that was touched on by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that there should be joint sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee or a Standing Committee and Members of the Assembly to discuss the legislation. I envisage that slotting into the procedure provided for by amendment No. 187.
	The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it at least provides a framework that goes considerably beyond what the Government spelled out in clause 94. I hope the Minister and other members of the Committee will respond in a positive spirit as to what further improvement we can make to the procedure. Leaving aside for a moment the proposal that I initially made in  amendments Nos. 180 and 211, amendment No. 187 should be seen as standing on its own, although it can be linked to amendment No. 212, which further provides that subsection (5) will not be satisfied unless, before the draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons, the Welsh Grand Committee has debated the draft and the Welsh Affairs Committee has reported that it approves the draft. That is a further provision to increase and improve the consulting period and the way in which consultation takes place.
	Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 were originally tabled by the Welsh nationalists, but we have added our names. We sought to achieve something similar in amendments Nos. 123 and 181, but for reasons that are fairly obvious, I prefer what is attempted in amendment No. 123 to amendment No. 181. Put simply, we find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State should have the ability to refuse to place a draft before Parliament. Looking at the matter sensibly, one would assume that the Secretary of State holds office because his party has a majority in Parliament. But why should the Executive be in a position to veto the right of this House to consider the Assembly's draft?
	If the Secretary of State were unhappy with a draft, it would surely be his job to come to the House and to explain, in the Committee proceedings that take place before the Order in Council can be approved, what he did not like about it. If there were a constitutional problem relating to it, let him come along and tell us. If we agreed with him, we would doubtless support him. If we disagreed, we could vote on the matter. But to provide for a double procedure in which the Secretary of State had a power of veto would appear to introduce the very mischief that I mentioned earlier, namely that this procedure in part 3 gives power to the Executive and removes it from the legislature. In this instance, we would be doing that for no good reason. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) speak to these amendments, because they make a great deal of sense.

Elfyn Llwyd: The purport of the amendments is exactly as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has described. We are at a loss to understand why the Secretary of State should once more have an absolute veto over a provision being sought by the democratically elected Assembly for Wales. The Minister will no doubt address that point, and I do not want to labour it because it is getting late and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has already put the case for the amendments very eloquently.
	The purport behind new clause 4 is fairly simple. It reads:
	In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in section 94(5)(a), followed by a refusal to lay that draft statutory instrument before each House of Parliament, as specified in section 94(7)(b), the Counsel General
	this next part is really the amendment
	or the Assembly may refer to the Supreme Court for decision the question whether the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to lay the draft statutory instrument was made reasonably in the circumstances and intra vires.
	In an earlier exchange with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, concern was expressed that our proposals might have the effect of politicising the judges. However, we have used the word reasonably in the new clause, which relates to the reasonableness test according to the Wednesbury principles of a judicial review. We would seek to ascertain whether, with all the known facts being out in the open, the Minister had acted reasonably in all circumstances, and within his powers. That is all we are asking. We are not asking whether his decision was politically motivated or whether it was contrary to any or in favour of particular policy.
	This is not in any way a political amendment. It is a stopgap measure to deal with the eventuality in which a future Secretary of State who was less sympathetic, or even hostile, to the cause of devolution than the present one might seek to prevent the Assembly from legislating, by providing the Assembly with some recourse to the law. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to give us a definitive answer to this question today. New clause 4 would strengthen the democratic institution of the Assembly and allow it the same immediate right of referral to the Supreme Court that the Counsel General would have, and that the Attorney-General is given in other parts of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 27 states, in effect, that
	In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly . . . but there not being within 60 days of that approval, an approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament as specified,
	the Assembly could, by a two thirds majority, carry on. If the period were 55 days, and were the House to adjourn for three months during the summer recess, that would be utterly unacceptable to the legislators in the Assembly. The amendment would prevent such undue delay. That is not a slap in the face for Parliament, but merely enhances the Assembly's powers and, I hope, makes them more practical and ensures that its work is easier in due course.
	Those are the amendments to which I wish to speak. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has dealt with the other two amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends.

Paul Murphy: The Minister smiled kindly in the earlier debate on the question of pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that the Government will consider carefully some of the suggestions made in the Chamber. I want to refer to amendment No. 187, on which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield touched. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will also smile favourably on the use of the Welsh Grand Committee, which could be enhanced by allowing all Members of the House the right to attend but not vote, as is the case with European legislation. Those different possibilities should be considered to ensure a better sense of scrutiny than is achieved by simply having one and a half hours in a Committee Room Upstairs.

Mark Williams: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 53 and 54, tabled by my hon. Friends.
	It is worth reminding ourselves of the work of the Richard commission, and of the concern that it expressed at the capacity of the Secretary of State to have too great an influence over the wishes of the National Assembly. We contend that if we are to have Orders in Council, we should follow the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee, limiting the Secretary of State's powers to throw out an Order in Council only on procedural grounds. The Government's response to the Committee stressed the need for the Secretary of State to maintain that discretionary power in this area. The reply suggested limits to that discretionary power, but we believe firmly that those limits should be in the Bill.
	I do not doubt the current Secretary of State's sincerity as a devolutionist. He told the Welsh Affairs Committee that he was one, and I believe him. We have heard the Minister talk about deepening devolution. In that context, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has done, I wish to pose one question. What would happen if an anti-devolutionary party were to come to power in Westminster and totally frustrated the wishes of the Assembly by blocking any bid for enhanced legislation before Parliament even had a chance to consider it? We need more than vague assurances. We need assurances in the Bill.

Nick Ainger: This is a large group of amendments, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I address them in turn. I am conscious of the time, and I have a feeling that this will be a long speech.
	Conservative amendments Nos. 180 and 211 would add a requirement for an Assembly resolution on a draft Order in Council amending schedule 5 to be approved by at least two thirds of all Assembly Members. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked why, if the Government insisted on a two-thirds majority for an Order in Council in relation to a referendum, we did not require a two-thirds majority in relation to the Order in Council process and so on. The answer is simple. We seek a two-thirds majority for a referendum because there must be consensus that there is a view throughout Wales
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Charter of Human Rights and Commission Legislative Proposals

That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. COM (2005) 172, Commission Communication on Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Commission legislative proposals; and supports the Government's position that the communication establishes ways in which the Commission could improve the compliance of its proposals with aspects of community law related to fundamental rights and the Charter remains a non-legally binding showcase of existing rights.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 4 to 7.
	Ordered,

Finance and Services

That Charlotte Atkins be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Barbara Keeley be added.

Environmental Audit

That Mr Tobias Ellwood be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Graham Stuart be added.

Trade and Industry

That Mrs Maria Miller be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr Brian Binley be added.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

That Mr Michael Moore be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and Mr Colin Breed be added.[Joan Ryan, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NHS AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Howard Stoate: In the United Kingdom today, 9 million peoplenearly 15 per cent. of the populationsuffer from some degree of deafness. Of those 9 million, 5 million would benefit from hearing aids; yet only 2 million people currently have one.
	The introduction in January 2000 of the modernising hearing aid services project promised a step change in the way in which NHS audiology services were to be managed and delivered. Digital hearing aids, which hitherto had only been available privately at a cost of up to 2,500, were finally to be provided through the NHS,   and substantial investment was to be made available to audiology services to modernise their facilities and service. Since then a great deal has been achieved, and the quality of life of thousands of people, who are now benefiting from a digital aid for the first time, has undergone a dramatic improvement. It is an achievement of which the Government and its partner organisations, such as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, can be justly proud.
	While many patients have benefited in the last six years, a significant number of patients who are eligible for a digital aid, but have yet to receive one, are unlikely to have one fitted at any point in the near future.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving notice of his willingess to give way. As someone with a perforated tympanic membrane and chronic tinnitus, I am one of the 8 million or so to whom he referred.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the RNID. Is he aware of its approval of the scheme run in Leicester, my area, and six other parts of the country by Hearing Direct, which allows adult hearing aid users to receive telephonic advice and support encouraging them to continue such use without needing to travel to audiology clinics, thus saving them time and inconvenience? Is not the NHS doing quite well in bringing about such modernisation?

Howard Stoate: I am pleased to hear of the innovative service in my hon. Friend's area. That is an example of the way in which the service can be, and has been, improved dramatically. If such a service were rolled out across the country, many people, including my constituents, would benefit. However, as I shall explain, it is not universal. Many parts of the country do not enjoy the service that my hon. Friend has managed to achieve in his area.
	In the last year I have received dozens of letters from patients in Dartford, from people without an existing hearing aid, complaining about the length of the wait for a digital aid. I have also been contacted by a large number of patients with existing analogue aids, to whom the waiting list for a digital aid has been closed until recently. The distress and frustration that that is causing patients and their immediate families is, I need hardly say, considerable. It is particularly acute in the case of patients with existing analogue aids who are struggling to come to terms with the fact that they have no immediate prospect of receiving a digital aid.
	The digital hearing aid service for residents in the Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley primary care trust area is currently provided by Medway NHS Trust. At present, 244 patients in Dartford and Gravesham are waiting for a first fit digital hearing aid. There is currently a 10-month wait, which is considerably longer than the best practice standard in the RNID's patients guide, A good audiology servicewhat you can expect, which was published in 2002. The guide states that waiting times should not exceed the following: from GP referral to first assessment, not more than four weeks; from assessment to first fitting: not more than four weeks; and from first fitting to discharge; not more than eight weeks. Although the level of service is far lower than the best practice standard, it still represents a far better service than that enjoyed by patients who have been waiting to have analogue aids converted to digital aids. Until very recently, patients in that situation had no hope whatever of receiving a digital hearing aid as the waiting list for conversions was closed in order to enable the service to focus its resources on patients waiting for a first digital aid.

Peter Bone: The position must be different around the country because I have a constituent who makes the reverse complaint. She has been forced to have a digital hearing aid when she is happier with the analogue aid and we cannot get the analogue for her.

Howard Stoate: It is unique to have the Opposition complain that a service is too good. Long may it continue. If only it were so across the country. The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the service is patchy across the country.
	The waiting list for digital conversions has now been resumed in my area but the approximate waiting time is 32 months. As of 16 January, 951 patients in Dartford and Gravesham were waiting for digital conversion.
	In the past year, considerable efforts have been made to reduce waiting times for new patients and they are now a lot less longer than they were 12 to 18 months ago, when it was common to wait a year or more for a first fitting. The staff running the service deserve a lot of credit for that. However, that improvement has been made at the expense of patients with existing analogue aids, regardless of their clinical need, which concerns me.
	Medway NHS Trust claims that its hand has been forced to a large extent by the introduction of a new waiting time target for NHS and diagnostic services, which states that, by 2008, no patient will have to wait longer than 18 weeks from referral to hospital treatment. The trust has interpreted that target as meaning that new patients, that is,
	those patients with no amplification whatsoever
	should be prioritised. That is stated in a letter from the Medway NHS Trust chief executive's office dated 25 August 2005. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that point. In my opinion the waiting list target should apply to people with existing aids who have experienced further hearing loss as well as to people who have no amplification.
	Although the waiting list is now open again to patients with existing aids, patients are still facing an extremely long wait and I feel that a fresh approach, which is based purely on clinical need and is free from such arbitrary distinctions between patients, is necessary. When the modernising hearing aid services project was launched, the RNID recommended that patients with analogue aids awaiting conversion to a digital aid should undergo a clinical assessment, so that the most vulnerable and needy patients could be given priority. It is extremely disappointing, therefore, that that is not happening.
	The national framework contract public-private partnership with David Ormerod Hearing Centres and Ultravox, which was introduced in 2003, also makes a distinction between new patients without a hearing aid and existing patients with analogue aids. The PPP programme has made a significant difference to the lives of many new patients since its introduction and has been an undoubted success in many ways. It has enabled thousands of patients, who otherwise would still be waiting, to receive their first hearing aid. That comes as little consolation to existing patients in Dartford, however, who are not eligible for the scheme and still face a prolonged wait for a new digital aid.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on raising this important issue. Are not digital hearing aids a perfect example of the NHS finding it difficult to deliver medical improvements in technology, despite the best efforts of all its staff, the Government and Ministers? Is not that an example of the NHS finding it difficult to deliver the services that people want?

Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I shall explain some of the reasons for that. The fault is not the Government's alone, and the system has worked well in some areas, but the service is patchy and we must try to bring all areas up to the best level. It is not true that the NHS is unable to fulfil contracts and deliver a good service, as it is clear that it has managed to do so in many parts of the country.
	It is apparent, however, that a lack of resourcesthat is, facilities, staff and financestill hinders the NHS' ability to deliver the level of service that patients have a right to expect. The Department of Health announced in January 2000 that 94 million was to be made available to modernise hearing aid services in England and said that, by April 2005, the latest digital hearing aids would be available for those people across the country who could benefit from them. Although digital aids are available in north-west Kent, we are still a long way from achieving the unfettered access envisaged in 2000.
	The Darent Valley hospital patient and public involvement forum has campaigned tirelessly on this matter, and has suggested that many of the present problems result from a shortfall in funding from the Department of Health. It asserts that Government funding has covered only the cost of the hearing aids themselves and the associated computer equipment. The funding also helped to meet some, but by no means all, of the extra staffing costs associated with the increased work load, and that has obliged local PCTs to make up the difference from existing fundssomething that they struggle to do. One member of the PPI forum, John Beadle, has said that
	although funds have been allocated
	to trusts,
	they were insufficient to meet all the requirements of audiology departments to fully support the 'Modernising Hearing Aids Service' programme.
	Another major problem impeding the Dartford PCT's efforts to improve services is the shortage of suitable facilities. An outreach centre operated by staff from Medway, and using equipment from that trust, is available at Darent Valley hospital, but it consists of only one room. That is absurdly inadequate for an area with a population of almost 200,000.
	Medway NHS trust has put together a business plan for the development of audiology services, and it seems likely that some of the capital will be used to fund the creation of an additional audiology room. Even with that extra room, however, the trust will still not have the level of facilities that it needs to deliver an effective service. It will still be far below the recommended level of provision set out in the best practice standards for adult audiology published in 2002 by the Department of Health and the RNID. In addition, even if the service is able to recruit and retain a full team of staff, and to ensure that a full range of equipment is made available, it still will not have the necessary facilities to house them.
	Like all areas of the country, the service in Dartford is also affected by a shortage of audiologists. An audiology degree course has now been introduced and more qualified audiologists are now entering the profession but, with the demand for digital hearing aids continuing to increase, the service is struggling to keep up.
	More and more people are seeking help with their hearing problems and that is, of course, to be encouraged. We have known for a long time that there is an enormous amount of unmet need around the country, and it is good that people are coming forward for help, encouraged perhaps by some of the recent announcements that have been made by the Department of Health. I am worried, however, that those peoplesome of whom might also have been encouraged to seek help by their friends and familiesmay quickly lose heart and give up when confronted by a lengthy wait for a fitting.
	It is apparent that the lengthy waits experienced by patients in Dartford are common in many parts of the country. A recent survey carried out for the British Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists found that 41 per cent. of hospitals reported that queues of patients needing a hearing aid are longer now than in 2004. According to the society, it now takes seven weeks longer than it did in 2004 to see a specialist, have a hearing test and eventually get a hearing aid fitted.
	The worst affected region is the south-east. By autumn 2005, the average wait there rose from 58 weeks in 2004 to 81 weeks, according to the BSHAA. In the north-east, the average wait went up from 18 weeks to 48 weeks, and the average wait in the west midlands is now 65 weeks.
	In some trust areas, the average wait is considerably longer still: the BSHAA reported total waiting times in 2005 of 130 weeks at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton, of 156 weeks at Birmingham's City hospital, and of 106 weeks at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate. In contrast, the average total wait from referral to fitting is around 31 weeks in the east midlands region, and 35 weeks in the northern region.Again, that shows the existing disparity across the country. The speed of service that a patient can expect therefore varies widely from place to place, and that is clearly unacceptable.
	Waiting times are by no means the only issue that patients are concerned about. For example, a number of people have also approached me with concerns about the level of choice that exists in terms of the types of digital aid available to eligible patients. Although in-the-ear aids are available to private patients, NHS patients have access only to behind-the-ear aids, which   many people find cosmetically unacceptable. Unfortunately, most NHS patients are unaware of this until they come to have a digital aid fitted. Not unnaturally, they are often very disappointed. This is particularly true of patients who receive their aid through companies involved in the public-private partnership scheme, which have of course spent considerable sums advertising availability of in-the-ear aids.
	I am also concerned that, because of the pressure on local audiology services, patients who have been fitted with a digital aid may not be getting the rehabilitation and aftercare that they need to ensure that they make full use of the aid. The aftercare burden faced by audiology services has become even heavier since the introduction of the PPP scheme, as the companies taking part in it are not involved in the aftercare of NHS patients whose digital aids they fit. A telephone follow-up service has been introduced by the NHS, and it is clear that it is working in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), but it is not ideal and no substitute for ongoing, personal, face-to-face consultations.
	It is clear that lack of effective service monitoring and audit arrangements at local level have contributed to the parlous situation in which many audiology services now find themselves. The Department of Health, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have all published guidance on how local services should run. For example, NICE issued guidance on hearing aid technology as long ago as July 2000. It recommended that audits be performed to assess the performance of audiology departments. Two years later, the Department of Health and the RNID published their Best Practice Standards for Adult Audiology, which set out the standards that
	all audiology departments will want to work towards.
	It concludes by saying that
	a scheme should be put in place for monitoring and audit on a regular basis.
	It seems, however, that few trusts have been able to implement either the best practice standards or the NICE guidelines fully. In many places, no attempt whatsoever has been made to implement them. Moreover, since those guidelines were published, little or no attempt has been made at national level to assess the quality of service being delivered in terms of waiting times, or to see whether the guidelines are being adhered to.
	Part of the problem up to now is that unlike accident and emergency or cancer waiting times, the Healthcare Commission does not take into consideration audiology waiting times in setting each trust's annual performance rating. This problem is compounded by the fact that the Department of Health does not collect records of waiting times in each trust on the fitting of hearing aids. Both those oversights need to be addressed if we are to have a more accurate understanding of the situation on the ground in each area.
	The new Department of Health 18-week treatment target for audiology patients by 2008 is a welcome step forward, but as I have already alluded to, to whom this waiting list target actually applies needs to be clarified. Does it apply to all patients, or just to those without any amplification? I should also be grateful for clarification of the level of treatment that the target refers to. Does it apply simply to the waiting time from general practitioner referral to an appointment with an ear, nose and throat consultant, or to the waiting time from GP referral to final fitting? It needs to refer to the latter if it is to have any credibility. A more robust and transparent system of targets, assessment and audit is absolutely essential if the service is to improve across the country.
	Resources remain the ultimate obstacle, however, to service improvement. I have already referred to the   straitened circumstances in which the audiology service in Dartford is operating. I hope that the accommodation problems that Dartford is experiencing are not the norm across the country. An assessment of the appropriateness of the accommodation in which each service is functioning needs to be carried out, and I ask the Minister to ensure that it is.
	An assessment of the financial capacity of each service to deliver its basic commitments also needs to be carried out. The RNID document Sustaining your modernised audiology service maintains that adult services in England
	have been fully funded to fit digital aids, and an increase to reflect ongoing commitments has now become part of the baseline allocation to trusts.
	The evidence from Dartford and from the BSHAA, however, suggests that trusts are finding it difficult to meet their obligations to patients, and that the funding provided is nowhere near sufficient to meet demand. Funding for audiology services ceased to be ring-fenced in April 2005 and audiology services now have to compete for funding with other health care departments. So it is unlikely that the funding situation will improve in the immediate future, given the state of most trusts' funding. Until requisite funding is made available that is based on an accurate assessment of the level of need in each community, audiology services will undoubtedly struggle to cater for existing demand.
	In some ways, the Department of Health has become a victim of its own success in marketing digital hearing aids. In the past five years, thousands of patients have been persuaded, thanks to the efforts the Department of Health and the RNID, of the advantages that a digital aid can offer, and they have become aware of their availability on the NHS. Demand has therefore risen dramatically across the country, in most cases well beyond the capacity of the local audiology service. We cannot afford for the progress made in the past few years to be wasted. A thorough review of the way in which audiology is funded, delivered and monitored is therefore essential. I urge the Minister to make it a priority.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). The topic is clearly important nationally and to his constituents, and as usual he set out his arguments eloquently. Like him, I believe that people who need hearing aids should have access not only to the latest technology, but to a high quality service. I thank him for his recognition of the dramatic national progress of the past five years in audiology, particularly the move from the old-fashioned analogue aids towards offering modern digital hearing aids.
	My hon. Friend referred to the situation in his area. I pay tribute to the national health service staff in his constituency who have worked hard locally and done much to bring down waiting lists. I shall come to some of the problems that he has outlined and set out some of the ways in which we are addressing them. I should, however, put it on the record that the average waiting time for first fitting of digital hearing aids in all areas served by Medway Maritime Hospital Trust is 40 weeks. That sounds a long time, but it has come down from approximately 100 weeksnearly two yearsin early 2005. The trust plans to bring that below 10 weeks. The trust also plans to see 70 patients per month who are waiting for conversion from analogue to digital hearing aids. As part of that, there have been a number of local initiatives. One in Dartford, involving Gravesham primary care trust, is providing services to something like 600 extra patients, some of whom require analogue to digital conversions, by using private sector providers.
	The team at the Medway trust is also carrying out group-fit sessions that enable more patients to be seen, and that is giving valuable peer support. Audiology facilities at Darent Valley hospital are to be extended, and recruitment of additional staff is under way. Audiology services at Gravesend hospital is to be moved to the new Gravesend community hospital later this year, and service links at the new facility will enable more sessions to be carried out at Gravesend to complement the sessions at Darent Valley hospital. In addition, 606,000 from the modernising hearing aid services initiative is being used this financial year across Kent to bring down waiting times. Finally, Kent and Medway strategic health authority is establishing an audiology group to look with PCTs and trusts at the impact of some of those current initiatives and to set further targets and trajectories for waiting lists in 2006.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the initial 125 million investment in modernising NHS audiology services. He asked what that covered, and I can confirm that it covered staffing and training in the new modernising hearing aids services procedures as well as equipment and information systems.
	All NHS audiology services are now able to fit digital hearing aids routinely and I reassure my hon. Friend that the Department would neither advocate nor promote treating only those without analogue aids. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend's trust is now working to fit analogue aid wearers with digital hearing aids. However, I agree that we still have a long way to go. As my hon. Friend said, demand has grown enormously, and that has led to long waits in some areas.

Brooks Newmark: I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr.   Stoate) on raising this important issue. I also congratulate the Minister on her willingness to try to achieve the goals that the hon. Gentleman seeks. The challenge, however, arises from the funding crisis that many PCTs are suffering. How does the Minister intend to bridge the gap between the important objectives that she seeks to achieve and the funding crisis?

Rosie Winterton: It is important to be clear that the NHS has received enormous investment, and all PCTs have benefited from that. We need to ensure that PCTs manage their finances properly, and if that is not sorted out the finances will not be on the even keel necessary to fund some of the new services that are coming on line. Financial management is vital to enable some of the PCTs that have difficulties to get on an even keel so that those services are provided by all PCTs.
	We are taking several measures to tackle the problems, including 350 additional audiology posts and a new four-year BSc degree in audiology with a total of 348 students in training. The national framework contract public-private partnership will allow NHS trusts to use private hearing aid dispensers, which is just the sort of initiative that is being used in my hon.   Friend's constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned, we are also introducing Hearing Direct, an optional telephone-based service that offers follow-up care and advice for selected hearing aid users. It will not suit everybody, and I wish to emphasise that if face-to-face contact is still necessary after the telephone contact, it will still be on offer. However, Hearing Direct is an exciting initiative that has achieved a high degree of satisfaction among users, not least because it can reduce the time that they spend travelling to out-patient appointments.
	In the time remaining, I wish to address a few more of the points that my hon. Friend mentioned, such as the availability of in-the-ear aids compared with behind-the-ear aids. The MHAS procurement group, chaired by the RNID, agreed that the default position would be the provision of a range of behind-the-ear devices. However, if a specific clinical need for an in-the-ear device was indicated, one would be provided.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned accommodation provision, which should be part of local service planning arrangements. The Medway NHS trust is considering using some of its capital to fund the creation of an additional audiology room. Even one room can cost something like 100,000, but I must emphasise that it is a matter for local PCTs to decide how they wish to address some of the accommodation issues.
	We are also looking at further action on waiting times through the national physiological measurement programme. One of the development sites for this work is at the East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust and the outcome of that will be shared across the strategic health authority.
	My hon. Friend asked particularly about the 18-week target, and we are looking at the principles and definitions for that target. We started consultation that closed on 8 December. Audiology, as a whole, is one of the disciplines that we are considering at the moment and, following ministerial approval to the final principles and definitions, we will be publishing guidance within the next two months.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the NICE guidance. NICE withdrew that guidance in May 2003 in the light of the proven success of the MHAS pilots and the wider availability of digital hearing aids. There is no central audit of practice by the Department
	The motion being made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.